a 


= 
: 
bs 


af ideetaene 
si Meee 








) 


ee 
ca 


is 
feat 
Pay 
Drs 
iat 





Yi \ 
Jere AER TS 
A Ay ( 











CRITICAL AND DOCTRINAL 


COMMENTARY 


UPON THE 


EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


BY 


WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD, D.D., 


ROOSEVELT PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN UNION 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK. 


Dh Ws ORK: 


CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS, 
743 anp-745 BrRoapway. 





COPYRIGHT BY 
WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD. 
1879. 








— 


PREFACE. 


Tue principal purpose I have had in view, in preparing 
this Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans, is to 
promote the critical and doctrinal study of this important 
portion of the New Testament. It is specially intended for 
theological students and clergymen. Yor this reason, the 
Greek text is printed at the top of the page, so that the 
reader may refer, by a glance, to the word or the clause that 
is explained in the notes below. I have adopted the text of 
Lachmann, with such modifications, chiefly from Tischen- 
dorf, as would probably have been made by Lachmann him- 
self, if he had had access to those manuscripts that have 
been brought to light by the industry and skill of Tischen- 
dorf. As an editor, Lachmann, like Bentley, who in the 
preceding century proposed the same plan of founding the 
text upon the oldest rather than upon the most numerous 
manuscripts, possessed a critical tact and sagacity that 
make his. judgment of high value. This is generally ac- 
knowledged, especially as exhibited in Lachmann’s editorial 
labors in classical literature. Where the uncial text omits 
long clauses that appear in the received, I have generally 
added the received text in brackets; the shorter omitted 
clauses being given in the notes. The punctuation will be 
found to vary in some instances from both that of Lachmann 
and Tischendorf. Punctuation is in reality, exposition; and 
an editor will of course arrange words and clauses in accord- 
ance with his own understanding of their connection. 


vi PREFACE. 


In respect to the annotations upon the text, I have had in 
mind the words of Calvin, in his dedicatory epistle to Simon 
Grynzus. ‘I remember,” he says, “that when three years 
ago we had a friendly converse as to the best mode of 
expounding Scripture, the plan which especially pleased you 
seemed also to me the most entitled to approbation: we both 
thought that the chief excellence of an expounder consists 
in lucid brevity.” The notes are concise, and bear strictly 
and directly upon the word or clause. Special care has been 
taken to supply the ellipses, upon which the right under- 
standing of St. Paul so often depends; and to cite the most 
pertinent Scripture texts that explain the meaning of a 
word, or sentence. ‘There is little attempt at homiletical 
expansion of the thought, in order that the actual connec- 
tion of the reasoning may be kept continually in sight, and 
not be even temporarily obscured by that more diffuse 
explanation which sometimes introduces only remotely re- 
lated matter. At the same time, whenever the case required 
it, I have not hesitated to enter upon an analytic, and some- 
what exhaustive enucleation of the meaning. The reader 
will find that particular attention has been devoted to the 
doctrine of original sin, in the 5th chapter; of indwelling 
sin, in the 7th and 8th chapters; and of election and repro- 
bation, in the 9th, 10th, and 11th chapters. In this way, 
while the commentary is critical and philological, it is also 
theological. Under this head, Calvin and Owen have been 
much consulted, and particularly the exceedingly thorough 
exposition of David Pareus, who has entirely escaped the no- 
tice of such wide readers as De Wette, Meyer, and Philippi. 

The history of the exegesis of the Epistle is also given, to 
a considerable extent, by the mention of the leading advo- 
cates, in the Ancient and the Modern Church, of the differ- 
ent explanations of the more disputed passages, This is a 
task that is not easy to be performed within a short space. 


PREFACE. Vii 


By reason of the ambiguity or hesitation of a commentator, 
it is sometimes difficult to place him. In citing authorities, 
I have relied much upon Wolfius, De Wette, Meyer, and 
Lange. 

All the important readings are specified, together with the 
several manuscripts and versions that support them. I have 
not, however, deemed it worth while to cite any uncial later 
than L, or any version later than the Vulgate. This will 
enable the student to see the manuscript authority down to 
A.D. 900, and that of versions down to A.D, 400. The 
manuscripts are cited only a prima manu. 

In short, the endeavor of the author has been, to furnish 
the theological student with an aid to his own conscientious 
examination of the original text of the Epistle to the Ro- 
mans, and thereby to the formation of an independent judg- 
ment and opinion which he will be ready to announce and 
maintain. It will be reward enough, if this commentary 
shall be the means of stimulating any to the close and life- 
long study of the most important document in the New 
Testament, after the Gospels. Demosthenes read Thucy- 
dides over and over, seven times, for the sake of forming 
that concise and energetic style which has been the admira- 
tion and the despair of orators. Whoever reads St. Paul’s 
Epistle to the Romans over and over, not seven times only, 
but seventy times seven, will feel an influence as distinct 
and definite as that of a Leyden jar. But the study of St. 
Paul, like that of the speeches in Thucydides, must be 
patient analysis. The great characteristic of this Epistle 
is the closeness of the reasoning. The line of remark is a 
concatenation like that of chain-armor, of which each link 
hooks directly into the next, without intervening matter. 
The process of an exegete must, consequently, be somewhat 
similar to that by which a blind man gets a knowledge of a 
chain, He must do it by the sense of touch. He must han- 


vili PREFACE. 


dle each link separately, and actually feel the point of con- 
tact with the preceding link, and the succeeding. 

The Epistle to the Romans ought to be the manual of the 
theological student and clergyman, because it is in reality 
an inspired system of theology. The object of the writer 

was to give to the Roman congregation, and ultimately to 
Christendom, a complete statement of religious truth, It 
comprises natural religion, the gospel, and ethics; thus coy- 
ering the whole field of religion and morals. It is sometimes 
forgotten that the introductory part of this Epistle contains 
the fullest and clearest account ever yet given, of man’s 
moral and religious nature, and his innate knowledge of 
God and law. There is no deeper psychology, and no bet- 
ter statement of natural religion, than that in the first and 
second chapters. St. Paul does not vilify the created en- 
- dowments of the human intellect, but rates them high; not 
only because this agrees with the facts, but that he may 
show the greatness of the sin that has so wantonly misused 
and abused them. The closing chapters exhibit ethics, or 
the science of duties, in the same profound and comprehen- 
sive manner. And between these two departments of natu- 
ral religion and ethics, the doctrine of justification, or the 
gospel, confessedly finds its most complete and exhaustive 
enunciation. The Epistle to the Romans is therefore ency- 
clopeedic in its structure; it is round and full, like the circle 
of Giotto, and contains all the elements of both natural and 
revealed religion. The human mind need not go outside of 
this Epistle, in order to know all religious truth. 


Union THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
New Yours, Noy. 1, 1879. 





NOTE. 


THE following statement explains the notation of the manuscripts 
that are cited in the Commentary, mentioning their dates according 
to Tischendorf and Scrivener. The dates of the versions that are 
cited are given according to Tischendorf, Scrivener, Mill, and L'ght- 
foot. 


MANUSCRIPTS. 


&. Codex Sinaiticus: A.D. 350, Tischendorf and Scrivener. A. 
Codex Alexandrinus: A.D. 475, Tischendorf; A.D. 450, Scrivener. 
B. Codex Vaticanus: AD. 350, Tischendorf; A.D. 325, Scrivener. 
C. Codex Hphraeni: A.D. 450, Tischendorf and Scrivener. D. Codex 
Claromontanus: A.D, 550, Tischendorf and Scrivener. E. Codex San- 
germanensis: A.D, 875, Tischendorf and Scrivener. ‘‘ A mere tran- 
script of Claromontanus by some ignorant person. It is manifestly 
worthless, and should long since have been removed from the list of 
authorities,” says Scrivener. F. Codex Augiensis: A.D. 875, Tisch- 
endorf and Scrivener. G. Codex Bernerianus: A.D. 875, Tischen- 
dorf; A.D. 900, Scrivener. L. Codex Angelicus: A.D. 850, Tischen- 
dorf and Scrivener. 


VERSIONS, 


Peshito : A.D.175, Tischendorf and Scrivener. Jtala, or Old Latin: 
A.D. 175, Tischendorf; A.D 150, Mill. Swahidic, or Thebaic: A.D. 250, 
Tischendorf; A.D. 225, Lightfoot. Coptic, or Memphitic ; A.D. 250, 
Tischendorf; A.D. 225, Lightfoot. -dthiopic: A.D. 350, Tischendorf 
and Scrivener. Vulgate: A.D. 400. 





COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Tue church at Rome, at first, was an informal gathering of 
Christian believers, many of whom had been converted to 
Christianity in different parts of the Empire, and had subse- 
quently settled at the metropolis. The salutations in chap- 
ter xvi. prove that Paul, at the time of writing the Epistle, 
was acquainted with a considerable number of them. This 
acquaintance could not have been made at Rome. The list 
in Acts ii. 9-11 mentions “strangers of Rome ” (6¢ érdnpotv- 
tes Pwpaior), among the three thousand that were added to 
the Christian church on the day of Pentecost. These were 
Jews residing at Rome, who, after their conversion and 
return to the metropolis, constituted a part of the Roman 
congregation; the remainder being converted Gentiles. 
Most of the names mentioned in Rom. xvi. are those of 
Gentiles. 

That the nucleus of a church must have existed very early, 
is proved by the fact that Paul informs the Romans, that dé 
moXA@v érav he had been wishing to visit them and preach to 
them, xy. 23; 1.10. His engagements elsewhere had hither- 
to prevented, i. 13; xv. 22. He hoped, however, soon to ac- 
complish his desire, but his visit must be a short one, because 

it 


2 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


he has to carry a charitable collection to the church at Jeru- 
salem, and because Spain and not Italy is to be the terminus 
of his missionary labors, xv. 23-27; Acts xx. 2 sq. For 
these reasons, he sends them a written statement of the gos- 
pel-plan, as a preparation for a personal visit, making a long 
stay with them unnecessary. The journey of Phoebe, a dea- 
coness of the church at Cenchrea, the port of Corinth, affords 
an opportunity of sending the Epistle, xvi. 1. 

The Romish tradition, resting mainly upon a vague state- 
ment of Eusebius (II. 14, 15), that Peter went to Rome in 
the reign of Claudius (A.D. 42), and founded a church there, 
of which he continued to be the bishop for twenty-five years, 
is incredible for the following reasons: 1. According to Acts 
xv., Paul finds Peter at Jerusalem as late as the year 50, 
still laboring with the “apostles and elders” in Palestine 
and Syria. 2. According io Gal. ii. 11, Peter still finds his 
field of labor in Western Asia as late as A.D. 55. Paul 
meets him in Antioch at this date. 3. According to 1 Pet. 
v. 13, Peter is connected with the church in Babylon as late 
as A.D. 60. That this is the literal Babylon, is favored by 
the fact that the first Epistle of Peter was addressed to the 
dispersed Jewish Christians in Asia Minor (1 Pet. i. 1), 
whose condition and needs would have much more naturally 
come under the eye of an apostle on the banks of the 
Euphrates, than on the banks of the Tiber. 4. Had the 
church at Rome been founded by Peter in A.D. 42, and 
been under his presidency from that time onward, it is 
highly improbable that Paul would have made it any apos- 
tolical visit at all, or have written it an apostolic epistle; 
for, in xv. 20 he states it to be his principle of evangelistic 
labor, ‘‘to preach the gospel not where Christ is named, 
lest he should build upon another man’s foundation.” 5. 
If, in the face of these objections, it still be claimed that 


Peter was the founder and bishop of the church in Rome, 


~ 


INTRODUCTION. So 


the entire absence in Paul’s epistle of any allusion to Peter 
is inexplicable. 

It is generally agreed that Paul wrote the Epistle to the 
Romans at Corinth, during his third missionary tour. The 
proofs are these: First, according to xv. 25, the writer is 
just starting for Jerusalem, with money which has been con- 
tributed “for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem;” this 
collection was completed at Corinth, as appears from 1 Cor. 
xvi. 1-3; 2 Cor. ix. Secondly, The Epistle is sent by the 
hands of Phoebe from Cenchrea, the port of Corinth, xvi. 1. 
Thirdly, Paul’s “host” is Gaius, and Gaius was a citizen of 
Corinth, xvi. 23; 1 Cor. 1.14. Fourthly, Erastus sends a 
greeting by Paul, xvi. 23, and Erastus lived at Corinth, 
2 Tim. iv. 20. 

The Epistle to the Romans is the sixth in the series of the 
Pauline Epistles; having been preceded by 1 and 2 Thessa- 
lonians, written from Corinth A.D. 53; by Galatians, writ- 
ten from Ephesus A.D. 54; by 1 Corinthians, written from 
Ephesus A.D. 55; by 2 Corinthians, written from Ephesus 
or Macedonia A.D. 56. Guericke’s date for the Epistle to 
the Romans is A.D. 58. 

The authenticity of the Epistle to the Romans is strongly 
supported. It is mentioned in the list given in the Murato- 
rian Canon, as early as A.D. 160. The Peshito and Itala 
Versions of it date at least as far back as A.D. 200. There 
are citations of, or allusions to it, in Barnabas, Clemens 
Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clemens Alexandrinus, Theo- 
philus of Antioch, Tertullian and Origen. These authorities 
cover the period A.D. 100-250. Chapters xv. and xvi. have 
been impugned by Semler, Eichorn, and Baur, in support of 
their individual theories; but they are found entire and com- 
plete in the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts (A.D. 325- 
3850), as well as in the later ones; and are included in the 
Peshito version of the Epistle. The diplomatic evidence is 


4 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


as decisive for the genuineness of the last two chapters of 
the Epistle, as of any. 

The aim of the Epistle to the Romans is didactic. The 
main object of Paul is, to furnish the Roman Church with a 
comprehensive statement of evangelical doctrine. No book 
of Scripture comes so near to being a body of divinity as 
this. It is systematic and logical, from beginning to end. 
Apostasy and redemption are the hinges upon which every- 
thing turns, and in discussing these the writer touches, 
either directly or by implication, upon all the other truths of 
Christianity. The Epistle to the Romans is, therefore, the 
Novum Organum of the Christian Religion. “I know,” 
says Jacobi, ‘“‘no deeper philosophy than that of Paul in the 
seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. In merely 
natural men, sin dwells. Regeneration is the foundation of 
Christianity. He who expels the doctrine of grace from the 
Bible utterly expunges the Bible.”* In a similar manner, 
Coleridge expresses himself. ‘1 think St. Paul’s Epistle to 
the Romans the most profound work in existence; and I 
hardly believe that the writings of the old Stoics, now lost, 
could have been deeper. Undoubtedly it is, and must be, 
very obscure to ordinary readers; but some of the difficulty 
is accidental, arising from the form in which the Epistle ap- 
pears. If we could now arrange this work in the way in 
which we may be sure St. Paul would himself do, were he 
now alive, and preparing it for the press, his reasoning would 
stand out clearer. His accumulated parentheses would be 
thrown into notes, or extended to the margin.” + 

Another view of the main design of this Epistle is, that it 
is polemic against Judaism. Baur maintains that the writer 
has the early Ebionitism in his eye. The objections to this 


* F. H. Jacobi’s Fliegende Blitter. Zweite Abtheilung. 
+ Coleridge’s Table Talk, June 15, 1883. 


INTRODUCTION. 5 


are the following: 1. The matter is addressed to Jewish 
Christians in common with Gentile. Both divisions are 
equally regarded as believers in Christianity. Compare il. 
9, 10, 17; iv. 1 sq.; ix. 1 sq. 2. There are no warnings 
against Judaism as such, as there are in Corinthians and 
Galatians, which are polemic epistles, to some extent. 3. 
There is nothing in the Epistle that implies that the Roman 
church was in danger of apostatizing from evangelical truth, 
to Jewish ceremonialism. The internal indications, such for 
example as the Greek names in chapter xvi., go to show that 
the Gentile Christians were in the majority, and were the 
controlling power. 4. Whenever there are any injunctions 
in the way of caution or reprobation, as in xvi. 17-20, they 
are addressed to the whole church, and have no more refer- 
ence to Jews than to Gentiles. 

That the Epistle has a polemic reference towards legality, 
as the contrary of evangelical faith, and that this gives a 
color to it as a whole, is evident. But such polemics as this, 
is aimed at human nature generally, and not at the Jew par- 
ticularly. The Gentile equally with the Jew is liable to self- 
righteousness, and the Epistle combats self-righteousness 
from beginning to end. 

The analysis of the Epistle to the Romans shows that 
its plan is extremely simple and logical. St. Paul dis- 
cusses the necessity, the nature, the effects, and the indi- 
vidual application of the dcaocvvn Jeov, or gratuitous justifi- 
cation. Under these four heads, he brings, into the first 
eleven chapters, the dogmatic substance of the Epistle. He 
then enunciates, in the remaining five chapters, the prin- 
ciples of Christian ethics and morality, which he deduces 
from this evangelical method of justification, and connects 
immediately with it. The Epistle to the Romans, therefore, 
like the Pauline Epistles generally, combines both theory 
and practice: the latter being founded upon the former. 


6 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


The scheme of the whole work, then, is as follows: 
I. THE DOCTRINE OF GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION : CHAPTERS 
I.—XI. 
1. Necessity of gratuitous justification: Chapters i.—ii. 20. 
2. Nature of gratuitous justification: Chapters ii. 21—iv. 
25. 
3. Effects of gratuitous justification: Chapters v.—viil. 
4. Application of gratuitous justification: Chapters ix.- 
ma. 
IJ. CurisTIAN ETHICS, AND MORALITY: CHAPTERS XII.—XVI. 
1. Duties to God and the Church: Chapters xii. 1-13; xiv. 
1-xv. 13; xvi. 17-20. 
2. Duties to the State: Chapter xiii. 1-7. 
3. Duties to Society: Chapters xii. 14-21; xii. 8-14. 
4. Personal references, greetings, and benediction: Chap- 
ters xv. 14—xvi. 16; xvi. 21-27. 


CHAPTER I. 


*IIairos Soddos Xpictod “Incod, KAntos améaToXos 
apwpiopévos eis evaryyédov Jeod, * 5 mpoernyyeiAato bua 


Ver. 1. [atdos] The apostle’s original name was Saul, from 
danw, “asked for,” Acts xii. 9. Jerome, followed by Bengel 
Olshausen and Meyer, explains the change to Paul as com- 
memorative of the conversion of Sergius Paulus. But this 
contradicts the spirit of the maxim, “ Without all contradic- 
tion, the less is blessed of the better,” Heb. vii. 7. The con- 
vert might be named for the apostle, but not the apostle for 
the convert. The opinion of Grotius is better, that Paul is 
only the Greek form of Saul. dovAos] is general, like the 
Old Testament “servant of the Lord,” Josh. i. 1.  «Ayros| 
denotes the special preparation, by conversion and inspira- 
tion. dmdcrodos| is a person formally commissioned and 
sent. Compare John i. 6, where dzeoradpévos is not a part 
of the verb, as in the English Version, but a predicate. 
adwpicpévos, etc.| explains still more particularly the term 
kAntos ; the root, dpiev, signifies to draw a line around: to 
horizon; hence, to set apart, or separate. is evayyehuov| is 
equivalent to etayyeAileoJar. Compare 2 Cor. ii. 12; x. 14. 
Jeod| is the genitive of authorship. 


Ver. 2. apoernyycikaro] This pre-announcement of the 
gospel is made in the Messianic promises, prophecies, and 
types of the Old Testament. Paul finds all of the cardinal 
doctrines of the New Testament, germinally, in the Old, and 


8 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


ToV TpopnTav avTov, év ypahais ayiats, * wept TOD viod 
avTov Tod yevouévov éx omépwatos Aaveld Kata odpKa, ( 


continually cites the Old Testament in proof of the truths 
and facts of Christianity. Compare iv. 3 sq.; ix. 7 sq.5 x. 5 
sq.; xl. 2sq. ypadais| is anarthrous, because a well-known 
collection is meant. It is equivalent to a proper noun. 


Ver. 3. epi] refers to mpoernyyeiharo, and not to eiayye- 
Auov. Beza and Wetstein incorrectly make verse 2 a paren- 
thesis. viot] is employed theanthropically. The Son here 
spoken of is the incarnate Son, constituted of two natures 
which are described in the context. -yevouévov| implies a birth 
or yéveots, Compare Gal. iv. 4; Mat.i.1. The human nature 
in the incarnate Son was “born,” or “made to become,” from 
“the seed of David.” Christ’s humanity was not created 
ex nihilo, but was procreated. It was “made of a woman;” 
that is, of a woman’s nature or substance, Gal. iv. 4. o7ép- 
patos| is equivalent to dvcews. Though a physical term, it 
stands here for the whole man, upon both the mental as well 
as the physical side. odpxa] is antithetic to zvedua in verse 4, 
and denotes the humanity of Christ, as the latter denotes his 
divinity. Though primarily a physical term, like oréppa, yet 
here, like that, cap stands for the whole humanity, upon both 
the side of the soul and body. The apostle is describing 
Christ with respect to all of his human characteristics, both 
mental and physical, when he describes him xara odpka, 
Compare ix. 5. The term oapé, in this Epistle, commonly 
denotes sinful human nature. Compare vii. 5, 18, 25; viii. 
3-9, et alia. But, in this passage, a sinless humanity is 
meant. Christ’s human nature, having been derived by 
miraculous conception from Mary who was of the “seed of 
David,” and having been perfectly sanctified by the Holy 
Ghost, was a sinless birth. It was 76 yevvapevoy ayiov of Luke 
i, 35. Traducianism finds support in this text, because it is 


CHAPTER I. 4. 9 


4 A c , ean lal > / \ A e 
Tod optadévros viod Jeod ev Suvdper Kata TrvEedma ayiw- 
auvns €& avactdcews vexpav, “Incod Xpictov tov Kupiov 


the entire humanity, and not a part of it, only, that was 
“born,” or “made to become,” from the “seed of David.” 
The “reasonable soul” as well as the ‘‘ true body” are both 
included in the odpé, and this is here described as yevopevy éx 
oréepuatos Aaveld. Christ was the Son of David mentally, as 
well as corporally. 


Ver. 4. épic3evtos] “declared,” not “ decreed ” (Vulgate). 
Christ’s resurrection evinced his divinity, but did not decide 
or determine it. It was one of the indications of his super- 
human nature. In the old grammar, the indicative mood is 
called épiotixds. viod| is here employed differently from what 
it is in verse 3: namely, in the metaphysical or trinitarian 
sense, and denotes the unincarnate Son prior to his assump- 
tion of odpé. tus is here equivalent to the Adyos of Johni. 1. 
Previous to the incarnation, there is only one nature in the 
Son, and this a divine nature, which the writer describes as 
TO Tvedpa dywovrns. ev dvvdéue.| is adverbial, and qualifies 
épioJevtos. The resurrection of Christ from the dead, like 
the resurrection of Lazarus which preceded it, was an event 
in which the miracle reached its acme of energy. «ara mved- 
pa| is antithetic to xara cdpxa in ver. 3, and refers to the 
deity in the composite person of Jesus Christ, the incarnate 
Son (Calvin, Beza, Pareus, Olshausen, Philippi, Hodge). 
The same antithesis is found in 1 Tim. i. 16, which teaches 
that Jesus Christ was manifested to the world by means of 
his humanity (ev capxi), and justified and glorified by means 
of his divinity (év zvevpar.), In 1 Pet. iii. 18, Christ is de- 
scribed as suffering death in his human nature (gapxi), and 
overcoming death in his divine nature (mvevyarr). And in 
John iv. 24, zvedua anarthrous is employed to denote abstract 
and absolute deity, the divine essence itself. This explana- 

1* 


10 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


tion of mvetua, as signifying divinity when opposed to odp§ 
as signifying humanity, was common in the patristic age. 
In the second Epistle ascribed to Clement of Rome (e. 9), it 
is said that Christ, dv pev 70 mp&tov mveipa, eyévero caps. 
Upon this, Hefele remarks, that wvet~a is equivalent to 70 
Setov év Xpiord. In Hermas (Pastor, iii. 5) there is the fol- 
lowing statement descriptive of the Son of God “ qui creavit 
cuncta:” “Filius autem spiritus sanctus est.” Under this 
term spiritus sanctus, Grotius, Bull, the Benedictine editors, 
Ittig, Miinscher, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Hefele, under- 
stand to be meant the divine nature of Christ, and not the 
third person of the Trinity. Similarly, Cyprian (De idolo- 
rum varietate, 11) describes the incarnation: ‘ Ratio dei in 
virginem illabitur, carnem spiritus sanctus induitur, Deus 
cum homine miscetur.” Ignatius (Ad Ephesios vi) re- 
marks, eis iarpds €orw, capKixos TE Kal mvEevparLKOS, yevyTOSs Kat 
ayevytos, €v wapKl yevouevos Jeds, év Javatw Cun adydwy, kat €éK 
Mapias Kai éx Jeod, mpatov madnros Kai Tore aadiys [i. e., post 
resurrectionem |, "Ijcots Xpiords, 6 Kvpios yuov. Augustine 
(Inchoata expositio, Ed. Migne, iii. 2091) comments as fol- 
lows upon the passage under consideration: Eundem sane 
ipsum qui secundum carnem factus est ex semine David, 
predestinatum dicit filum Dei: non secundum carnem, sed 
secundum spiritum; nec quemlibet spiritum, sed spiritum 
sanctificationis. That is to say: the “spirit” that is anti- 
thetic to the “flesh,” in Christ’s Person, is not the ordinary 
finite spirit of man, or angel, but the extraordinary and in- 
finite Spirit. Similarly, Gregory Nazianzen (Oratio*xxxviii.) 
remarks: HpoeAJov 6& Jeds peta tis tpooAnWews, ev ex dv0 evay- 
Tiwv, TapKos Kal TVEvpaTos, Gv, TO pev EJEwoe, TO Oe EIEwIe. 

Some commentators, with Beza and Tholuck, refer zvedpa 
to the third person of the Trinity, as the agent by whom the 
resurrection of Christ was accomplished. But this would 
require dua wvevuaros, as in Heb. ix. 14; to say nothing of the 


CHAPTER I. 4 11 


loss of the antithesis between xara cdpkxa, and kara mvedpua. 
Other commentators, like Meyer and De Wette, regard 
mvetpa as antithetic to odpé taken in its restricted significa- 
tion, to denote the sensuous nature only. It is Christ’s 
rational human nature, they assert, as distinguished from 
his physical human nature: this higher spiritual side of 
Christ’s humanity was filled with the Holy Spirit. But the 
mere possession of reason in distinction from sense, even 
though reason be sanctified and inspired by the Holy 
Spirit, would not be a mighty indication that Jesus Christ 
was the Son of God. The Old Testament prophets possessed 
mvevpa in this sense, and were both sanctified and inspired, 
so that while there might be a difference in degree between 
Christ and them, there would be none in kind. Further- 
more, the zvevua here attributed to Christ was something in 
respect to which he was not “of the seed of David.” But, 
the awveiya that constituted his rational soul, in distinction 
from his animal soul, was é« o7éppatos Aaveid. dywwovvys| is 
the genitive of origin. This zvedua, which is distinguished 
from Christ’s odpé, is in itself an original fountain of holi- 
ness. It does not derive righteousness from a higher source, 
as all finite zvetya does, but possesses self-subsistent right- 
eousness which it can communicate to creatures. Compare 
1 Cor. xv. 45, where the “last Adam” is denominated “a 
quickening spirit.” ‘Paul considers the divine nature of 
Christ according to the relation it had to, and the great 
effect that it exercised upon, his other nature. For it was 
his divinity which sanctified, consecrated, and hypostatically 
deified his humanity ” (South: Sermon on Rom. i.3, 4). Com- 
pare this same force of the genitive of origin in 7w4p m7, 70 
mvedpa TO ayiov (Sept.), Isa. Ixiii. 11, and 27pm, 70 TVEDHLO 
TO dyiov cov (Sept.), Ps. li. 13. In these, and similar passages, 
where the third person of the trinity is referred to, the geni- 
tive is more than a mere adjective. The Spirit who is thus 


12 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


\s a 6 by we 3 ie 4, \ > X 9 e \ 
nUaV, ° Ov ov EXaBopwev Yapw Kal aTooTON)Y eis UTTaKONY 
TigTEwWS ev TaoLW Tols Evert UTEP TOD dvopaToS avTOD, 


described is not only holy, but the eternal ground and source 
of holiness. In precisely the same manner, this zveipa of 
Jesus Christ which is distinguished from his odpé, is the 
fountain of holiness, that is to say, is the divine essence 
itself. €& dvaotdcews| This resurrection, which is a mighty 
indication of Christ’s divine Sonship, may be referred to 
either the first or the second person of the trinity. Some- 
times it is the Father who raises Christ, Rom. vi. 4; and 
sometimes Christ himself rises, 1 Thess. iv. 14. The eternal 
Logos, being the whole divine essence in a particular trini- 
tarian subsistence, when united to a human nature is the 
author and cause of all the miraculous experiences of this 
nature. Hence, the zvedua in Christ’s person evinced its own 
divinity by the resurrection of Christ’s human body. It is 
true, that Christ’s resurrection is the particular official work 
of the Father; but the official work of one person is some- 
times attributed in Scripture to another, by reason of the 
unity of essence. Each person possesses the same entire 
divine essence, and since it is the essence which wields the 
infinite power that performs the miraculous work, the work, 
though eminently belonging to one particular person, may 
yet be attributed to either one of the trinitarian persons. 
Thus, creation, though officially and generally ascribed to the 
Father, is sometimes ascribed to the Son, John i, 3; Coloss, 
i. 16. Since, however, St. Paul (i. 2) has spoken of God the 
Father as “ promising afore” the gospel of his Son, it is more 
natural to refer the resurrection here to the first person, as an 
official act by which he fulfils his promise. 


Ver. 5. éAaBouev| is the writer’s plural for the singular. 
xapw| converting and supporting grace. dmooroAjy] official 
authority, together with the inspiration upon which it rests. . 


CHAPTER I. 6-9. is 


*év ols eoté Kal vmels KANTO. Incov Xpiotov, ’ Tacw Tots 
ovow év “Poyn ayarntois Jeov, KdnTots aylous. yapis 
bpiv Kal eipnvn aro Jeod Tatpos nuav Kai Kupiov ’*Incod 
Xpicrod. 

* [IpOrov pév evyapicta TH Je@ pov Sia “Incod Xpu- 
OTOD TEpl TAVTwOV DUOV, OTL 1) TlaTLs VuoV KaTayyedrETAL 
év Oh@ TO KOT. |* wdpTus yap pov Eat O eds, @ Aa- 


eis braxonv| is like eis ebayyéAvov in verse 1: “in order to pro- 
duce obedience.” ziarews| genitive of source; the obedience 
flows from faith. t7ép tod évéuaros| is to be connected with 
=) 4 - 6 > , “Yhrietja 99 

eAdPouev ; “for the glory of Christ’s name, 


Ver. 6, «Anrot| called, not as in verse 1 to the apostolic 
office, but, to Christian fellowship. Xpiorod| the genitive of 
efficient cause: “by Christ.” 


Ver. 7. zaow] is to be connected with HatAos in verse 13 
the apostle addresses all the saints in Rome. yxdpis| begins 
the salutation that follows the address, which ends with 
ayiows. Xpicrov| the association of Jesus Christ with God 
the Father, as the source of eternal grace and peace, is a 
proof of his co-divinity. “Incovs Xpucros is the name of the 
Eternal Son, or Logos, after and not before the incarnation, 


Luke i. 31. 


Ver. 8. mparov ev] is not followed by any second clause 
introduced by ezeira de, because of the rapidity and fullness 
of thought in the writer’s mind. 64 Xpucrod] Christ is the 
mediator of the prayer. iors] in Christ as the object of 
faith. KxatayyéAderar|] a proof that the Roman church had 
been in existence for some time. 


Ver. 9, yép| introduces the proof that he “thanks God.” 
€v T® mvevpot.| denotes sincerity, and is equivalent to év TH 
-Kapdia, Eph. v.19. Though avedpna, in the New Testament, 


14 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


_Tpevo év TO TvEvpaTi wou Ev TH ELayyeriw Tod viod avTod, 
@s adiarelmTos pvelavy Luav ToLvodmat “ TavTOTE éml TOY 
Mpocevya@v jrov, Seduevos ef Tas dn TOTé EevOowInTOMaL 
év T@ JeAjpwate Tod Jeovd EAIeiv Tpos twas. ™ émuTod@ 
yap toely bpas, Wa TL METACw ydpiowa vuly TvEevpMaTLKOV 
eis TO OTNPLYIShvat bpas, ” TOUTO dé é€oTW TUMTapAaKdHd)- 

> (hn \ an > >’ / / e n \ 
vat év vuiy dua THS év AXAHAOLS TicTEwS, UMaV TE Kab 


generally denotes the understanding, and xapdia the heart 
and will, yet the two are occasionally interchanged, because 
both constitute one soul. év 76 edayyedtw| in preaching the 
gospel. Compare verse 1. s| is employed adverbially, de- 
noting degree; it is not equivalent to or. dduadeirrws| is 
the emphatic word, and is to be connected with yap. 


Ver. 10. eri] “upon the occasion, at the time of,” Acts 
xi. 28; 1 Thess. i. 2. It is not equivalent to év. ebodwdyco- 
pat] This verb is employed metaphorically in the passive 
voice. Hence, it does not mean “to have a prosperous 
journey ” (Eng. Ver.), but, “to be prospered or successful.” 


Ver. 11. xapicua] does not here denote the supernatural 
gifts spoken of in 1 Cor, xii., but the graces of the Spirit, as 
the explanation in verse 12 shows. 


Vir. 12. cuprapaxdyIjvar| the preposition has its distine- 
tive meaning, denoting mutual comfort. The reference is 
not to affliction in the restricted modern sense of the word, 
but to cheer, animation, and strengthening in the Christian 
race and fight. The connection with oryprxIjvar, in verse 13, 
proves this. The old English use of the word “ comfort” 
was founded upon the etymology (con — fortis), and had 
reference mainly to. strength of endurance. Thus Orlando 
says (As You Like It, ii. 6): “ For my sake be comfortable; 
hold death awhile at the arm’s end.” To be strengthened. 


CHAPTER I. 13, 14. 15 


€ov. | “ov Dérw Sé duds ayvoeiv, aderpoi, bTL ToNAd- 

, bs a \ co lal \ 3 lA + la 

Kis Tposdéunv eXJeiv mpos buds, Kal exwdVInv aype TOD 

Sedpo, iva Twa KapTrov oxw Kal év tyiv Kadas Kal ev Tois 
A " 74 , a 

Aowrrots Edverw. “”ENAnowv Te Kat BapRadpous, codois Te 


with might, by God’s Spirit, in the inner man, Eph. iii. 16, 
is to receive the coméort of the Holy Ghost. In this sense, 
the Holy Spirit is the only Comforter, because he alone im- 
parts an internal power of endurance, and of submission to 
the divine will. 


Ver. 13. od Jé\w dyvociy] is a weak form of a strong 
thought; the writer’s meaning is: “1 wish you to under- 
stand very distinctly.” This rhetorical figure of litotes, or 
meiosis, is a favorite one with St. Paul. Compare xi. 25; 
meeorex. t- xit. I 2°Cor. i; 8; 1 Thess. iv. 13; Acts xxvii 
19. de] is transitive: “now.” «al év tiv] cat is repeated 
pleonastically from the earnestness of the thought. oAAd- 
xis| implies that the Roman church had existed for a con- 
siderable time. 


Ver. 14. BapBapos| In Greek authors, BapBdapo denotes 
all non-Grecians. The Eleatic stranger, in Plato’s States- 
man (262) says that ‘in this part of the world, they cut off 
the Hellenes as one species, and all the other species of 
mankind they include under the single name of ‘barbari- 
ans.” Xenophon speaks of Greeks and barbarians as com- 
posing the army of Cyrus. The Romans are called barbarians 
by Greek authors (Polybius y. 104); but Roman writers 
claim classicality for Rome; e.g., Cicero (De finibus ii. 15): 
“Non solum Grecia et Italia, sed etiam omnis barbaria.” 
It is not probable that St. Paul, with his courtesy and con- 
ciliatory method, intended to place the Romans, whom he 
was addressing, among the barbarians; yet, neither could he 
call them Greeks. His meaning is, that he was under obli- 


16 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


P > 9 \ , 
Kal avontous operréTns exis "* oUTwS TO KAT ewe Tpddu- 
\ ton mits 23 ‘p , > s 9, 16 > \ 
pov Kal vuiv rots év ‘Payn evayyedicacta ov yap 
\ a > \ ’ 
eTravayuvouat TO evayyédov* Svvapis yap Jeod éaTiv Eis 
, lel > lal ‘ 
cwoTnpliay TavtTl Te TraTevovTL, Iovdaiw Te Tpw@Tov Kal 
"EXrnvi. “ Sixavoctvn yap Jeod ev av’Td aroxarvTTeTat 


gation to preach the gospel universally. His second classi- 
fication of mankind into coddu and dvoyro, ‘cultivated and 
uncultivated,” corrects any unfavorable inference that might 
be drawn, respecting the Romans, from the first classifica- 
tion. The Romans, though not Greeks, were copou. dpetd€- 
Tys] sc. ebayyeAicagIa, The obligation is to Christ. 


Ver. 15. ovrws| as an ddedérys, that is. 7d Kar’ eué mpo- 
Jvpov| may be resolved: 1. as equivalent to 4 zpodupia euod 
(sc. €orw); 2. TO Kar eve (se. éor) tpddIvpov. The construc- 
tion, To é€ twov, in xii. 18, favors the latter. 


Verses 16 and 17 constitute a transition from the preface, 
to the subject of the Epistle. érawyvvozac| hints at the scorn- 
ful treatment which Christianity had received at Athens, 
Corinth, and Ephesus, the seats of Grecian culture. dvvayus]} 
power needs not to be ashamed, and is not generally. In the 
human sphere it is accompanied with pride; in the divine, 
with calm confidence. prov] first in the order in which the 
gospel was to be preached; because “salvation is of the 
Jews,” John iv. 22, and Jerusalem was the natural point of 
departure. Compare Luke xxiv. 47; Actsi.8. avti| shows 
that Christianity is a universal religion, and modifies the first 
impression of zp@rov. 


Ver. 17. yap] introduces the reason for the affirmation in 
verse 16. ducavocvvy| the absence of the article denotes that 
a peculiar and uncommon kind of righteousness is meant: 
“a righteousness,” not “the righteousness” (Eng. Ver.). 
Two views have been taken. 1. duaocvvy denotes an ob- 


CHAPYER I. 17. 17 


jective attribute of God: retribute justice (Origen); truth 
(Ambrose) ; benevolence (Semler). 2. ducavoovvy denotes a 
subjective state or condition of man, in which he is dikatos, as 
in 11. 21, 22. The quotation, in the context, from Hab. ii. 4, 
favors the second view. The righteousness in question is the 
personal possession of the believer, through the instrumen- 
tality of his faith. That it is an extraordinary righteous- 
ness, is proved by the subsequent description of it as xwpis 
vomov, and xwpis epywy vouov, and ywpis epywy, ill. 21, 28; iv. 6. 
The common righteousness, known to human ethics, would 
be described as dixatoovvyn dud voor, or év epyos. It is personal 
and actual obedience. Viewed from the position of ethics, 
a “righteousness without works” would be a “ righteousness 
without righteousness:” that is to say, no righteousness at 
all; because, in the ethical sphere righteousness is work it- 
self, or obedience to law. Consequently, this evangelical 
righteousness of revealed religion, as distinguished from the 
ethical righteousness of natural religion, is a solecism and 
self-contradiction to the ethical philosopher. It is the play 
of Hamlet, with Hamlet omitted. It is foolishness to the 
Greek, 1 Cor. i. 23. Jeod] is the genitive of source. God, 
and not man, is the author of this peculiar species of duxato- 
oivy, The ordinary ethical righteousness, on the contrary, 
has a human author. Personal and actual obedience of the 
law is man’s righteousness. Imputed obedience without ac- 
tual personal obedience, is God’s righteousness. doxaAvrre- 
tat| implies that this extraordinary righteousness is a matter 
of special revelation. It cannot be derived from the natural 
operation of the human reason. This would yield only the 
ethical righteousness of personal obedience. Its only utter- 
ance is: ‘‘Obey, and live.” That ‘the man which doeth 
these things shall live,” x. 5, is self-evident, and requires no 
special revelation; but, that “the man who worketh not, but 
believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly shall live,” iv. 5, 


18 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


’ r ’ , \ , c \ , 3 
éx mlotews eis TlotTw, Kada@s yéypaTtat ‘O S€é dixatos eK 
mistews CnoeTal. 
*- AroxaduTTetar yap opyi) Jeod am ovpavod én 
n 5 f A > / > / n \ > / 
Tacayv acéBewav Kal dodikiay avipoTav THY TiVY adyJevav 


is not self-evident, but depends for its credibility upon com- 
petent testimony to this effect. The reason why the dicaco- 
ovvy in question is not deducible by human reason, but must 
be revealed from God, is:() that it is a product of merey. 
But, the exercise of mercy is optional, and not necessary. It 
depends upon the free decision of God, Rom. ix. 15, and this 
decision cannot be known to man until it is made known to 
him; and 2. that the compatibility of the exercise of mercy 
with the indefeasible claims of justice, is a problem insoluble 
by human reason. The use of the present tense implies that 
the revelation is not only objective, but subjective also. God 
revealed this righteousness in the written word, and is still 
revealing it in the experience of the believer. é« rictews eis 
aiotw| the revelation, from first to last, is made to faith. «is 
is telic; one degree of faith is in order to a succeeding great- 
er degree. Compare the same law of spiritual increase in 


John i. 16. 


§ 1. The necessity of gratuitous justification. Rom. i, 18- 
iii. 20. 
In verses 18-32, St. Paul proceeds to prove that man must 


obtain the duxaocivy Jeov in order to future blessedness, by 
examining the moral condition of the Pagan world. 


Ver. 18. droxadvrrerat] looks back to the same word in 
verse 17. According to the apostle, there are two revela- 
tions from God to-man; one the written, by which mercy 
(xépis) is made known; the other the unwritten, by which 
retributive justice (épyi) is made known. He designates: 


CHAPTER I. 18. 19 


them both by one and the same word, doxaAvrrew, because, 
in each instance, though in different modes, God is the effi- 
cient and man is the recipient. ydp| introduces the reason 
why God has revealed the dixavoovvy spoken of: namely, be- 
cause he had previously revealed his dpy7. This shows that » 
mercy is meaningless except in relation to justice, and that 
the attempt, in theology, to retain the doctrine of the divine 
love, without the doctrine of the divine wrath, is illogical. 
épy)| not punishment merely (this is an effect of dpy)), but a 
personal emotion in God which is the necessary antithesis to 
love. The New Testament, equally with the Old, attributes 
this feeling to the Supreme Being. Compare Mat. ii. 7; John 
fieaes tom. 1.5, 5; v. 9; 1x. 22; Eph. i. .3; v. 6 Col. i. 
6; Rev. vi. 16; xix.15. Wrath, when ascribed to the deity, 
must be clarified from all selfishness, in the same manner 
that love must be. The divine love is not lust, and the 
divine anger is not rage. Both are energies and effluences 
from a holy essence; the one terminating upon good, and 
the other upon evil. The divine dpy} isthe wrath of reason 
and law against their contraries. 

Respecting the mode in which this revelation of retributive 
justice is made, several views may be held. 1. In natural 
reason and conscience (Ambrose, Reiche); 2. In the day of 
judgment (Chrysost. Limborch, Philippi); 3. By giving man 
over to vice, verse 24 sq. (Meyer); 4. In all modes, internal 
and external (Tholuck, Olshausen). The last is best. zacdav] 
is anarthrous, to denote all kinds and varieties. dAnJear] is 
the natural knowledge of God described in verses 19, 20. 
This knowledge is ‘‘truth,” because it corresponds to the 
real and true nature of God. év déic‘a| is instrumental; sin 
is the means by which the rational perceptions of man are 
rendered ineflicacious in life and conduct. kareydvtwv| “ hold- 
ing down or under;” the pagan by self-will and inclination 
prevents reason and conscience from restraining his lusts and 


20 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


év adixia Kateyovtov, ” di0Tt TO yvwoTov Tob Jeod da- 
an € a 

vepov éati év avTois: Oo eds yap avTois épavépwcen. 

* ta yap adpata avTod amd KTicEws KOTO TOS ToMpacw 


passions. “ Veritas in mente nititur et urget, sed homo eam 
impedit” (Bengel, in loco). ‘‘ Video meliora proboque, de- 
teriora sequor” (Ovid, Met. vii. 20). 


Ver. 19. This verse is not to be separated from verse 18, 
because it explains why the wrath of God is revealed. d67¢] 
is more precise and formal than or: “for the reason that.” 
70 yvwotov| Meyer would render literally: “ the known,” not, 
“the knowable;” because all that knowledge which comes 
from written revelation is excluded, which is, of course, 
knowable. But the majority of commentators, in accord- 
ance with the classical use of the phrase, adopt the significa- 
tion of 7d scibile. In this sense, 76 yyworov denotes all that 
is knowable without written revelation, in the manner de- 
scribed in the context; and also implies that there is some- 
thing absolutely unknowable. Compare xi. 33.  €v atrots| in 
their immediate self-consciousness; it is equivalent to €v tats 
kapdias, Rom. ii. 15. eds efavepwoev| the self-consciousness 
is referred to God as the ultimate cause of it. This, in two 
ways: 1. God constructed the human mind so that it should 
have such a form of consciousness; 2. God immediately works 
upon the human mind as thus constituted. This operation 
is subsequently described in ii. 15, 16. St. Paul founds the 
responsibility of the pagan upon his knowledge of God. In 
proof, compare his own preaching to pagans, in Acts xiy. 13- 
17; xvii. 22-31. And he founds the guilt of the pagan 
which necessitates the manifestation of the Divine wrath, 
upon the abuse or non-use of his knowledge. | 


Ver. 20 is exegetical of eds epavepwoev, and explains how 
God “shows” truth to man. yap] introduces the explana- 


CHAPTER I. 20. 91 


tion. ddpata] the invisible attributes of God: afterwards 
specified as dvvayis and Jedrys. azo] “ever since.”  rounja- 
ow] the visible universe as opposed to the invisible attributes 
spoken of; the dative is instrumental. voovpeva] this verb, 
as its etymon implies, denotes a perception by the reason. 
It is rational and not sensuous perception; intuitive and not 
deductive. «xaJopara:| the preposition is intensive. The in- 
visible attributes of God are clearly perceived by the human 
mind, in the exercise of reason stimulated into activity by 
the notices of the senses. The merely sensuous vision of the 
earth and sky by a brute, would not result in the rational 
ideas of omnipotence (dvvayus) and sovereignty (Jedrys), be- 
cause the brute has not that rational faculty whose operation 
is properly designated by the verb voety. Yet the same physi- 
cal sensations would be experienced by the brute, that are 
experienced by the man. dvvayus| the first impression pro- 
duced by the visible creation is that of omnipotence. When 
all the other divine attributes fail to affect man, owing either 
to his vicious or his imbruted condition, that of almighty and 
irresistible power makes itself felt. Horace (Carminum, i. 35) 
confesses that he was ‘‘ parcus deorum cultor et infrequens,” 
until ‘‘Diespiter, igni corusco, per purum tonantes egit 
equos, volucremque currum.” Says Tertullian (Ad Scapu- 
lam, 2) to the pagan: “ We Christians worship one God, the 
one whom you all naturally know, at whose lightnings and 
thunders you tremble.” Aristotle (De Mundo, ec. 6) remarks: 
Taon Ivyty pvoee yevopevos aIewpytos, ar abtav tov epywv Jewpel- 
tat 6 Jeds. Similarly, Cicero (Tusculanarum, i. 23): “Deum 
” — Jedrys | 
divinity, in the sense of sovereignty or supremacy. The 
term is wide and somewhat vague, and purposely chosen to 
denote the general unanalyzed idea of God: a-sum total of 
the divine qualities. It is godhood, not godhead (Eng. 
Ver.). This latter term would require J¢érys, as in Coloss. 


non vides, tamen deum agnoscis ex operibus ejus. 


22 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


fa lal v4 > PA > lal tA \ l4 
voovpeva Katopatat, te aidvos adtod Suvamus Kab Seud- 
TNS, ELS TO Elvat adTods avaTronoyntous, ™ didte YyvovTes 
Tov Sedov ovy @s Jedv €d0Eacap 4) evyaplotnoav, GAN éwa- 


il. 9, and would imply the trinitarian distinctions, to which 
St. Paul has no reference in the verse under consideration. 
The term Jedrys is derived from the adjective Jos, and re- 
fers to qualities or attributes ; the term Jedrys is derived 
from the substantive %eds, and refers to the essence. Au- 
gustine (De Civitate, vii. 1) so explains: “Hane divinitatem, 
vel, ut sic dixerim, deitatem ; nam et hoc verbo uti jam 
nostros non piget, ut de greco expressius transferant id 
quod illi Jeéryra appellant,” ete. eis 70] is telic. God de- 
signed by this revelation of his attributes in human con- 
sciousness, that mankind should be inexcusable for any 
neglect or failure respecting them. St. Paul took the same 
position in his address to the Lycaonians, Acts xiv. 16; UR 
and to the Athenians, Acts xvii. 27. avaroXoyyrous | without 
excuse or reply, for not being subject to the divine suprema- 
cy and sovereignty. 


VER. 21 mentions the ground of the inexcusableness, 
which is introduced by &édre. yvovres] having known, in the 
manner described in verses 19, 20. The participle has a 
concessive or limitative meaning, as if Kaito. or Kaitep pre- 
ceded (Kiihner § 312; Winer § 45; Acts xxviii. 4), Al- 
though they knew God, they did not conduct accordingly, 
tov Jeov] the article implies the true God. os] denotes pro- 
portion; no worship corresponding to the worthiness of the 
object was rendered. eddfacay | denotes homage and adora- 
tion for what God is in himself, evxapiornoay| refers to 
gratitude for what God has done to benefit man. The two 
feelings of adoration and gratitude cover the whole province 
of religious feeling. evarauwdInoav] .“befooled themselves,” 





CHAPTER I. 22, 23, 93, 


, > a a ) la) XS 2 / e 
Tawodnoav év Tots Siadoyicpols avTav, Kal écxoticSn 1) 
acvveros avTav Kapdia: ™ dacKovTes eivat coo! éuwpav- 
Sncav, * kal HrAXraEav tiv SoEav tod apJaprov Jeod ev 


The absurdities of the mythologies and cosmogonies of pa- 
ganism are examples. In the Old Testament, an idol is 
denominated ‘‘vanity,” Deut. xxxii. 21; Jer. ii. 5. é] is 
instrumental: “ by means of.” Compare év ddiia, verse 18. 
duadoyirpots]|. The word denotes the rational, and not the 
imaginative faculty, as the rendering “imaginations” (Eng. 
Ver.) might suggest. The term “speculations” is nearer 
the meaning. The writer has in mind the great and per- 
verse ingenuity with which the human intellect is employed, 
in inventing the various schemes of pagan idolatry. In il- 
lustration, see Creuzer’s Symbolik, passim. éoxoricdn]. The 
relation between sin and mental blindness is that of action 
and re-action. Each is alternately cause and effect. Either, 
therefore, may be put as the cause. Here, the darkening of 
the intellect is represented as the effect of the foolish and 
wicked speculation; the liar comes to believe his own lie. 
kapoia| is put for mvetpa, or vods, as in Mark ii. 6; Rom. ii. 15; 


2 Cor. iv. 6. 


VERSES 22 and 23 expand and reaffirm the statement made 
in the latter clause of verse 21. qacxovres| signifies an un- 
founded assumption. Compare Acts xxiv. 9. éuwpavInoar | 
is the same verb that is employed in Mat. v. 15, to denote the 
loss of savour in salt. The apostle has in mind the insipidity 
of the pagan mythology; its flat and spiritless quality. The 
mythological legends are jejune and puerile. Even when a 
writer of great genius and great sense, like Bacon, in his 
“Wisdom of the Ancients,” endeavors to discover a solid 
and valuable meaning in the myths of Greece and Rome, the 
endeavour is felt to be an effort. The “ wisdom” is an im- 


94. COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


ec , SV) / A 3 , A Y 
omotmpate elKovos PIapTod aviIpwHme xal TeTEWaV Kai 
TeTpaToowy Kal épmeTav. ™“ dvd Tapédwxev avTods O Jeds 


portation rather than a deduction. The same remark is true, 
still more, of an attempt like that of Creuzer and Schelling 
to rationalize all mythology. 7\Aagav, etc.| There is a refer- 
ence to Ps. evi. 20. doéav| is kindred to dAnJeav in verse 25. 
That knowledge of God which agrees with his real and true 
being, is also a knowledge of his glorious being. év| is either 
1. instrumental; or 2. a Hebraism for eis. The first is prefer- 
able, being favored by the construction of év in the preceding 
and succeeding context (verses 18, 21, 24, and 25), and is 
adopted by such grammarians as Fritzsche and Meyer. The 
second supposes that the writer is quoting closely from the 
Septuagint version of Ps. evi. 20, which translates a 74195 
by #AAdéavro év. But it is a free reference, rather than a 
quotation.  6powparc] the external figure with particular 
reference to owtline: the ‘“‘shape,” as in Rev. ix. 7.  eixdvos| 
the form generally: an image, or idol (from étdwAov, denoting 
a form of that which is in itself formless and invisible), 
dyIpérov| St. Paul mentions the classical idolatry first in the 
order. The Greek and Roman employed the human form to 
represent the deity. erewév| the worship of the storklike 
bird Ibis. terparddwv] that of the bull Apis. é€pzer@v| the 
Serpent-worship. These stand for the more grotesque and 
hideous idolatries of Egypt and the Orient. 


Ver. 24. 6.0] introduces the reason for the action indicated 
by zapédwxev, which reasonvis found in man’s abuse of the 
knowledge of the true God. apédoxey| Chrysostom explains 
by permission (elace). The permission of sin is a Biblical 
doctrine. See Acts xiv. 16, where ciace is used. But, rape- 
dwxev is a stronger word than «lace. When God permits sin, 
he does not restrain, or in any manner counteract the human 


CHAPTER I. 24. 95 


will. He leaves if. to an absolutely free act of self-de- 
termination. In this instance, God’s action is negative 
merely; he does nothing. But when God “gives up,” or 
“oives over” the human will to sin, he withdraws an ex- 
isting restraint which he had previously applied. In this 
instance, his action is positive, and privative; he does some- 
thing. Again, the permission of sin is not necessarily a 
judicial or punitive act. The first sin of Adam was per- 
mitted, but not as a judgment or penalty. And when St. 
Paul, in Acts xiv. 16, alludes to sin as having been permitted 
“in times past,” he does not bring to view the retributive 
aspects of sin, so much as the kind forbearance of God in 
dealing with it. Compare also Acts xvii. 30. But “giving 
over,” or “giving up,” man to sin is always and necessarily 
a judicial act. It is a punishment of sin previously com- 
mitted. It is needless to remark, that when God “gives 
up ” man to sin, he does not himself cause the sin. To with- 
draw a restraint, is not the same as to impart an impulse. 
The two principal restraints of sin are the fear of punish- 
ment before its commission, and remorse after it. These are 
an effect of the divine operation in the conscience; they are 
the revelation of the divine épyj) in human consciousness. 
When God “ gives over” an individual, he ceases, tempora- 
rily, to awaken these feelings. The consequence is, utter 
apathy and recklessness in sin. The restraint of fear now 
being withdrawn, the self-determination of the man is unim- 
peded, and intense. The vices mentioned in the context, to 
which men were given over, were unaccompanied with either 
fear or remorse, and were pursued with a cynical and brazen 
shamelessness. éy émuJuuiais] instrumental dative: the wicked 
lusts are employed by God as the means whereby the man is 
given up entirely to his own self-will. No restraint from 
fear, shame, or remorse is longer put upon them. The con- 
sequence is, that they become yet more rampant; and the 


26 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS, 


2 a > / a a yA > by / a 
év tails émidupias Tov Kapdiov avTov eis axkadapalay Tod 
atipaverIar Ta CHpmata avtav év avtots, * oltwes peTHr- 
nn > ye la ine 5) fal f Ni / 
Aa~av THY adjIeav ToD Ieod év TA ~evder, Kal EreBaadn- 
cay Kal ENaTpEVTUY TH KTIOEL TAA TOV KTITAaVTA, OS EoTL 


consequence of this, is a deeper sinking in the filth of sin. 
The preposition év is a favorite one with St. Paul, and often 
denotes not only the instrument dy which, but also the ele- 
ment 7 which, anything occurs, or is done. In these in- 
stances, it is best rendered by the two prepositions “in” 
and ‘“‘by,” together. It has this complex meaning here. 
For the signification of the important term émuJuuia, see com- 
ment on vii. 7. dxadapoiav| is anarthrous, because of the 
peculiarity of the filthiness. rod dtiudleoFar] the infinitive is 
equivalent to a genitive exegetical of éxudapoiar, like zrovety 
in verse 28. The uncleanness was of a species that involved 
the dishonor of the body; legitimate sexual intercourse does 
not imply this. See Heb. xii. 4. 


Ver. 25 restates the reason for the action in rapédwxer. It 
is of the same general nature with that given in verses 21- 
23, namely, the abuse of the natural knowledge of God. 
oirwes| denotes a class: “being such as.” jperjAAagav] they 
had first changed the truth into error (verse 23), and then 
exchanged the one for the other. dA/Jeav| 1. the true and 
real nature of God (De Wette, Tholuck, Meyer); 2. the 
truth respecting God revealed in consciousness (Usteri). 
The first is preferable, because éA7Jeay is parallel with ddgav 
in verse 23, where the reference is to the divine nature. & 
TO Werder] “ with the lie” of polytheism, i. e.: the instrumen- 
tal dative, as in verses 23 and 24. Compare Isa. xxviii. 15; 
Jer. xili, 25.. éoeBaoInoay| the inward homage of the soul, 
éAdrpevoav| the outward worship (cultus) in ritual and cere- 
monies. mapa] 1. ‘ beyond,” in the sense of “ more than” 


we 


‘ CHAPTER I. 26. MY | 


> A > \ > ial > / 26 y A / 
evAoynTos els TOvS al@vas, anv. dua ToVTO Tapédwxev 
> \ c \ ? / > / 7 X / b) a 
avtous 0 Jeds eis maIn atywiass al Te yap Inrecar a’Tav 
/ \ x n > \ \ / 
peTNANAEAY THY huoiKnY XPHoW Els THY Tapa vow, 


(Erasmus, Luther, Vulg., Eng. Ver.); 2. “against,” in the 
sense of opposition to, as in verse 26 (Fritzsche); 3, “in- 
stead of” (De Wette, Meyer, Winer). The last is prefera- 
ble, and is favored by perjAd\agav. In the exchange, the 
creature was taken instead of the creator. The rendering 
“more than” is objectionable, because it implies that the 
creator was worshipped in some secondary degree that was 
exceeded by the worship of the creature. But there was no 
worship at all of the creator. 06s éorw, etc.] the doxology is 
suggested by the dazzling contrast between the true God 
and the impure idolatry. «tAoyyros| is applied only to God; 
paxdpwos is the term for man. Blessing, when God is the 
object, is not the bestowment of good, but the ascription of 
honor and praise. The first sense is excluded, because 
“ without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better,” 


Heb. vii. 7. 


Ver. 26 again mentions the reprobation. 6:4 totro] refers 
to the sin described in verse 25. drysias] is the genitive of 
quality. ze] “even” their females, etc. The sex which is 
naturally most shamefaced is in this instance the most 
shameless. “A shameless woman is the worst of men” 
(Young). Jy/Aea] not ywvatkes, 1. because the notion of sex 
is the point of view (Meyer); 2. because of the animalism of 
the sin (Reiche). Both views may be combined. perydAagav | 
has the same meaning as in verse 25. gvouciy| “sexual.” 
xpijow]| supply ris Indeias, because the vice spoken of was 
that of woman with woman, and because it is suggested by 
rijs In\elas in verse 27, which constitutes the second member 
of the sentence. apa] “against,” or “contrary to.” Com- 


28 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


7 Guoiws Te Kal OL appeves apévTes THY PvoLKnY xXPHoW 
ths Inrelas éFexavInoav ev TH opé&er adTav Eis addajdous, 
dppeves év dpperw THY aoxnLoovyny KaTepyatomevoe Kal 
pare Acts xviii. 13. gvow] “sex.” The vice alluded to is 
that of the tribades: Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 110; Plato, 
Symposium, 191; Lucian, Amores, xviii., Dialogi Meretricii, 
v. 2; Juvenal, vi. 311 sq.; Martial, i. 91; vii. 67, 70. The 
language of Lear (iv. 6) is applicable: “Down from the 
waist they are centaurs, though women all above: but to the 
girdle do the gods inherit, beneath is all the fiend’s; there’s 
hell, there’s darkness, there is the sulphurous pit, burning, 
scalding, stench, consumption.” 


Ver. 27. re kat] This formila is equivalent to et . . . que, 
not only . . . but also (Winer, § 53. Compare Acts iv. 27; 
Rom. i. 14; Heb. xi. 32). Not only did the women practice 
such vices, but likewise the men, ete. appeves] not avdpes, for 
the same reason that J)Aea is used in verse 26. gvorxyy| 
“sexual,” as in verse 26. é&exavInoav| “burned owt,” or 
ce up 2 ” 
intensity of the appetite inflamed by unnatural instruments 


a stronger word than zupotoJa, 1 Cor. vii. 9. The 


is denoted. dppeves év dppeow| The vice in question is men- 
tioned in Lev. xviii. 22; 1 Cor. vi. 9; 1 Tim. i. 10. The no- 
tices of it are singularly frequent in classical writers. See 
Herod., 1. 135; Plato, Phzedrus, 254-256, Symposium, 179- 
184, 191, 192, 217-219; Plutarch, Moralia, de Amore; 
Horace, Epodon, xi., Sermonum, I., iv. 27; Catullus, Car- 
minum, xv., xvi.; Martial, Librorum, xi., xii.; Virgil, Buco- 
licarum, ii.; Suetonius, Nero, xxix. Compare Wuttke’s Sit- 
tenlehre, I. 100-108. The freedom with which pagan writers 
speak of this sin contrasts strongly with the reserve of the 
sacred writers respecting it. St. Paul, Eph. v. 12, remarks, 
that “it is a shame even to speak of those things which are - 


CHAPTER I. 28, 29 


\ > VY aA gS lal / ’ lal > e lal > 
THY avTyuadiay nv eer THS TAdYNS avTaV ev EavTOts aTro- 
NapBavovtes. * Kal KaIws ovK édokimacayv Tov Jeov Exew 
év eTuyvecel, TapédwKev avTovs o Jeos Els AOOKiOoV vod», 


done of them in secret.” And Sir Thomas Browne says of 
unnatural vices, that ‘they should have no registry but that 
of hell.” The freedom and indifference with which even 
such moral writers as Plato and Plutarch allude to pederasty, 
illustrate the great difference, in respect to delicacy and puri- 
ty, between pagan and Christian morality. doyypoovvyy] 
“indecency.” 
the contrary of eioynpoovvy, the graceful and decent.  xarep- 


Plato (Symposium, 196) employs the term as 


yatopevor] the preposition is intensive. Compare vii. 15, 17, 
18. The indecency is unblushingly perpetrated.  dvtyu0Iiav | 
the recompense is the gnawing unsatisfied lust itself, together 
with the dreadful physical and moral consequences of de- 
bauchery. A celebrated actor, on walking through the 
syphilitic ward of a hospital, remarked: ‘‘God Almighty 
writes a legible hand.” &ée] implies the necessity fixed and 
made certain by the divine appointment. Aavys] the literal 
meaning of the word must be kept in mind; they had wan- 
dered away from the true God, in the manner described in 
verses 21-23. Compare the Latin and English error. & 
éavrois| the evil consequences are internal: in their own souls 
and bodies; and mutual: communicated to one another, and 
received from one another. 


Ver. 28. The apostle now passes from the sensual to the 
mental sins, to which the retributive justice of God gives the 
heathen over. xaJws| denotes both the cause, and the pro- 
portion. God withdrew his restraint, because they abused 
and misused their innate convictions, and in proportion as 
they did so. oxiwacay| a paranomasia with dddxmov: “as 
they did not think it worth while (after trial), God gave 


30 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Toul Ta pn KadnKkovTa, ” TeTANPw_EévOUS TaN adiKia 
¢ / \ / Lé y J 
movnpia Kaxia mheovetia, peatovs diovov ddvov épudos 


them over to a worthless (after trial) mind.” votv] denotes, 
here, not intellectual perception, but moral disposition, as in 
Coloss. iii. 17. Nos, in Scripture, like zvetpya, is sometimes 
put for xapdia. Compare Mat. v. 3; xxvi. 41; Rom. viii. 27. 
In this passage, it signifies the bent or inclination: what is 
denominated in Eph. iv. 23, the “spirit of the mind.” The 
English word “ mind,” in like manner, sometimes denotes not 
perception but inclination, as in the question: What is your 
mind? In the English version of Rom. viii. 6, pdovypa, 
which refers to the will, is rendered by “mind.” The pa- 
gan, because of holding down the truth in unrighteousness, 
was judicially given over to a disposition, or inclination, that 
is vile and detestable. The vots in the sense of intellect was 
still of value, but in the sense of heart and inclination was 
worthless. ovety] i.e. Tod rovetv. It is equivalent to a geni- 
tive exegetical of dddxpoy votv: “an inclination to do.” py 
kadyxovta| a litotes for detestable. The Greek conception 
of sin was weaker than the Hebrew, having an undue refer- 
ence to the idea of the decorous and becoming, 70 zpérov. 
This is seen in the feebleness of some of the terms employed 
even by St. Paul. Compare doxnmoovvy, i. 273; 7a odK avyKovTa, 
Eph. v. 43 70 dvpxov, Philemon 8. 


VER. 29. zemAnpwpévovs| 1. may agree with aidrovs ; in 
which case, the sins mentioned in verses 29-31 are causes of 
the action denoted by zapédwxev; 2. may depend upon zape- 
Swxev; in which case they are the consequences of this action. 
The second is preferable, because terAnpwpévous, etc., 1s most 
naturally to be regarded as epexegetical of sovety 7a pay Kady- 
xovra, The sins now to be specified are intellectual and not 
sensual. Their seat is in the mind, and not in the body, 


CHAPTER I. 29. 31 
The Receptus reading, zopveia, is omitted by SABC Copt., 
Aith., Lachm., Tisch.; and it is improbable that the writer, 
having previously described the sensual sins of the pagan, 
should return to them again, and then mention but a single 
one. These mental sins are 1. general; 2. particular. The 
former are connected with wemAypwpevous; the latter with 
peorovs. mdon| is anarthrous, because all sorts and varieties 
are meant. ddicia| “ unrighteousness” is the most general 
term possible. zovypia] ‘“ wickedness” is another general 
word. By Aristotle it is opposed to dpery, and by Cicero is 
translated by vitiositas. «axia] ‘‘ malice,” or ‘ malicious- 
ness” (Hng. Ver.), is the inward temper, “the leaven of 
malice,” 1 Cor. v. 8; as xaxonJeia (verse 29) is the temper 
exhibited in act. Aristotle defines xaxta as a disposition to 
put the worst interpretation upon every thing, é7é 70 xelpov 
trodapBdavew ta wavTa. mAeovesia.} “ covetousness” is not to 
be limited to the particular vice of avarice, but denotes the 
general sin of lust, or inordinate desire after creature-good, 
in preference to the Creator. Hence it is defined to be 
“idolatry,” in Coloss iid. It is that wide form of sin 
which is forbidden in the tenth commandment. This latter 
is rendered by the Septuagint, od« émuIuuyoes; and St. Paul, 
in Coloss. iil. 5, associates mAcovecéia with émuduuia Kaxy. 
pecrovs| like werAypwpévous, implies that the sins mentioned 
are not shallow and superficial, but deep and central. 
Jovov| immediately follows zAcovegia, because it is a phase 
of it. He who covets, or lusts after, a created good, envies 
another who possesses it. dvov] ‘ murder” naturally comes 
from envying another’s possessions, and lusting after them. 
ép.dos| “strife” with another for creature-good occurs in case 
the extreme of murder is not resorted to. d0Aov] “ deceit ” 
is employed to aid in the strife. KkaxonIeias] “malignity ” is 
the outward manifestation of ‘“ malice” (kaxia); envy, strife, 
and deceit, prompt various malignant acts. 


32 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Sérov KaxonJelas, * WiIupictas, KaTaddrous, Jeoorvyeis, 
ie, / ¢ Ug ’ f > \ an 

bBpictas, bTEepnpdvous, adafovas, epeupeTas KaK@V, Yyo- 
vevow amreiteis, * acuvétous, acvvdéTous, aoTOpyous, aveE- 


Ver. 30. WwIvpiras| “secret slanderers,” or “ backbiters.” 
kata\ddous| ‘open calumniators.” Jeoorvyeis] Suidas gives 
both the active and passive significations, and assigns the 
active to St. Paul’s use of the word here. The majority of 
commentators take this view. The classical use is the pas- 
sive. The Vulgate has deo odibiles. The Peshito gives the 
active signification. This is favored by the context, in which 
all the other sins describe man’s feeling towards God, and 
not God’s feeling towards man. tfpurds| “insolent” in 
word or act. imepypavous| ‘ haughty” in temper and spirit. 
édafovas| “boastful” is a term that denotes vanity rather 
than pride,—which latter is signified by trepynpavous. The dis- 
tinction between the two is expressed in Swift’s remark, that 
“the proud man is too proud to be vain.”  épevperas Kaxdv| 
Tacitus (Ann., iv. 11) describes Sejanus as facinorum om- 
nium repertor ; and Virgil (Adneid, ii. 163), speaking from 
the Trojan point of view, styles Ulysses scelerum énventor. 
yovetow amedeis| As the virtue of filial obedience is placed in 
the decalogue, so the vice of filial disobedience is placed in 
this list of heinous sins. 


Ver. 31. dovvérous] is the same term that is employed in 
verse 21 to describe the effect of sin upon the intellect. The 
sinner is without understanding in matters of religion. Com- 
pare 1 Cor. ii. 14.. In the Old Testament, sin is folly, and 
the sinner a fool. dovydérovs| the alpha privative may 
denote: 1. an unwillingness to make a covenant: i. e., “irre- 
concilable,” or ‘“ quarrelsome;” 2. a readiness to break a 
covenant when made: i. e., “‘ treacherous,” or ‘‘covenant- 
breakers.” Meyer contends for the second signification, . 


CHAPTER I. 32. 33 


a a , 
Nenpovas, © oltiwes TO Stxaiwua ToD Jcov émuyvovTes, OTe 
nr / 
of Ta ToLadTa mpdccovTes a&vo. Javdrouv eiciv, ov povov 
avTa TOLOUCL, AANA Kal cUVEVdOKOVGLY TOls TPuccovELW. 


citing Suidas and Hesychius, and asserting that the first has 
no support in usage. dardpyovs| wanting even in respect to 
the oropy, or instinctive affection, of the animal world gener- 
ally. dveXejovas| naturally follows the preceding word. If 
g, of course he loses all 
love of his race, and is without any compassion or sympathy. 
The Receptus, after doropyous, inserts aamdvdous (“without liba- 


man loses the love of his own offsprin 


tions:” which were offered when enmities were reconciled) ; but 
it is omitted in SABDEG Peshito, Copt., Lachm., Tisch. This 
catalogue of sins is very similar to that given in 1 Tim. ili, 2-4. 


Ver. 32. oirwes| denotes a class, quippe qui. All such as 
commit these sins know that they are sins, and that they are 
damnable, d:catwua| has two significations: 1. a statute, or 
commandment, Luke i. 6; Rom. ii. 26; vill. 4; Heb. ix. 1, 
10. 2. a verdict, or decision, either of acquittal or of con- 
demnation, Rom. v. 16, 18; Rev. xv. 4; xix. 8. The second 
is the signification here. St. Paul does not mean to say, 
here, that the heathen knew the law itself, as a statute or 
command of God. This he had already said. But that they 
knew the: decision, or verdict of God respecting such dis- 
obedience of the law. émvyvovres] the preposition is inten- 
sive, and the participle is employed concessively: ‘although 
they clearly knew,” in the manner described in verses 19-21. 
mpacoovres| “practising:” frequent action is denoted. Java- 
tov] From the pagan point of view, this would be the pun- 
ishments of Tartarus, some of which are represented as end- 
less by Plato (Gorgias, 525). “They who have been guilty 
of the worst crimes, and are incurable by reason of their 
crimes, are made examples; for, as they are incurable, the 

ox 


34 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


time has passed, at which they can receive any benefit them- 
selves. But others get good, when they behold them forever 
(ov det xpovov) enduring the most terrible and painful and 
fearful sufferings, as the penalty of their sins. And Homer 
describes Tantalus, and Sysiphus, and Tityus as suffering 
everlasting (rév dei xpdvov) punishment in the world below.” 
Plutarch also (De sera numinis vindicta) represents the 
Furies as tormenting forever those whom Peena in this life, 
and Diké in the future life, have failed to reform. Guilt is 
in its own nature endless; and hence the “fearful looking 
for of judgment,” Heb. x. 27, is also in its own nature end- 
less. From St. Paul’s point of view, which is that of re- 
vealed religion, Javaros is everlasting. ovvevdoxovow] to take 
pleasure in seeing another commit a sin implies even greater 
depravity than to commit it personally. ‘The viciousness 1s 
less impulsive, and more cold-blooded and Satanic. Com- 
pare 2 Thess. 1. 2. 

Respecting the guilt of the heathen, the criterion laid 
down by St. Paul is also concisely stated in James iy. 17: 
“To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him 
it is sin.” Wherever the individual’s character and conduct 
fail to come up to the individual’s knowledge, there is sin. 
Any rational creature who knows more than he puts in prac- 
tice is ipso facto guilty. Compare the author’s Sermons to 
the Natural Man, pp. 78-122. Upon the general subject, 
see Tholuck, On the Nature and Moral influence of Hea- 
thenism, Biblical Repository, Vol. II.; Neander’s Church 
History, I. 1-68; Wuttke’s Sittenlehre. 


CHAPTER II. 


‘Ato avarrodoyntos i, ® dvIpwre Tas 0 Kpivev: ev 
® if: 
@ yap Kpiveis Tov €ETEpov, cEeauvTOV KaTaKpivEels' Ta yap 


Ver. 1. The apostle now proceeds to consider the moral 
character and condition of the Jew, for the purpose of evin- 
cing that he, likewise, needs the dicavoovvy Jeod. 816] looks 
back to yap in Rom. i. 18, and refers to the whole line of re- 
mark made in Rom. i. 18-32 respecting the connection of 
moral knowledge with moral obligation. dvamoddyyros| is 
forensic in meaning: without defence before the divine tri- 
bunal where the d:xafwpna (i. 32) is pronounced. avSpwre| is 
employed universally, but with the intention, in the writer’s 
mind, to apply what is said of man generally to the Jew par- 
ticularly. as] is the nominative explanatory of the vocative. 
Compare Mat. i. 20. «pivwv| denotes not merely the forming 
of an estimate, but the passing of a sentence. It is a uni- 
versal trait in man, to sit in judgment upon the conduct of 
others. This is an additional proof that man possesses the 
moral knowledge that has been ascribed to him in chapter 1.; , 
otherwise he would have no rule to judge by. This pro- 
pensity was stronger in the Jew than in the Gentile, because 
of his possession of the written as well as the unwritten 
law. It is rebuked by Christ, in Mat. vii. 1-5. év 6] 1. in- 
strumental: the sentence that is passed is the very means by 
which the one passing it is himself sentenced; 2. supply 
xpovw; 3. supply zpa@ypuar. The last is simplest. ov €repov| 
the article singles out the individual. karaxpives] the prepo- 


36 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


> \ / e Y 2 ” NX ef ay a a 
auTa Tpacoes 0 Kpivwv. * oidayev Sé OTL TO Kpipa TOD 
Jeod éotiv kata adap decay €ml TOUS Ta TOLADTA 7 ph cae, : 
; Aoyity de TOUTO, @ dv Spore 0 epweay TOUS TH TOLAUTA 


mpdccovtas Kab TrOL@V auTa, OTL ov expevén TO Kpiwa TOU 


sition is intensive. ‘The sentence which man passes upon his 
fellow-man comes back upon himself in yet severer form. 
A 3 ss . . . . . 
Ta avta| not necessarily all the particular vices mentioned in 
the preceding chapter, but the same in principle. apacoas| 
denotes habitual practice, as in 1. 32. 6 «pivwy| is repeated 
for the sake of emphasizing the inconsistency of condemning 
a sin and yet practising it. 


Ver. 2. oldauev] Not the Jews particularly, but a general 
truth. Every one knows. 6é| marks the beginning of the 
argument: “now” we know: This reading is supported by 
ABDEG Peshito, Recept., Lachm. The reading yép is sup- 
ported by NC Copt., Vulg., Tisch. xptua] the judicial ver- 
dict. xara ad7Jeav| impartiality is particularly intended, 
as the context shows. émi] the sentence comes down upon 
them. to.tra] such as have been spoken of in Rom. i. 


18-32. 


Ver. 3. Aoyigy] is kindred in meaning to dvadoyopots in 
Rom, i. 21: “Do you imagine?” 62] is correlative to dé in 
verse 2: “ Now, we know, etc., ... and, do you imagine, 
etc.” ody atta] For proof, see the terms in which Christ 
speaks of the Jews, Mat. iii. 7; xii. 39; xvi. 4; Marl viii. 38. 
tovro| is contemptuously emphatic. é«pev&| the word de- 
notes exemption rather than acquittal. The person ad- 
dressed is supposed to imagine that he will escape the trial 
to which others will be brought. At this point, the Jew, 
though not named, is brought into view, and henceforth 
kept in view; for, exemption from the tests and punish- 
ments to which the Gentiles are liable was thought by the 


wii 


CHAPTER II. 4, 5. rs f 


Seod ; * 7) TOD TWAOVTOV THs ypnoTOTHTOS avTOdD Kal THs avo- 
yas Kal Tis paxpoIuulas Katadpovels, ayvody Ste 7d xpr- 
oTov TOD Jeod Eis peTdvoLay oe ayeL; ° KaTAa Sé THY TKANPO- 
em Ad, 

Jew to be his national prerogative. The Jewish feeling is 
indicated in Mat. iii. 7-9. 


Ver. 4. 7] “or,” in case thou dost not thus imagine, “dost 
thou despise,” ete. The particle introduces a new case. 
t\ovtov| is emphatic by collocation. It is a frequent word 
with St. Paul: not a Hebraism, but a common term for 
abundance. Plato (Euthyphro, 12) speaks of wAovros tis co- 
dias. xpyotdrytos| ‘“ goodness,” in the sense of good-will, or 
kindness: not the attribute by which God is good (holiness), 
but by which he does good (benevolence). It is a general 
term, under which dvoyy and paxpoduuia are species. For the 
meaning of these, see comment on iii. 25. Kkatadpoveis| the 
contempt is in the disregard of the tendency of the divine 
goodness to produce repentance. déyvodv] “ not recognizing.” 
The word implies an action of the will along with that of the 
understanding. It is that culpable ignorance which results : 
1. from not reflecting upon the truth; and 2. from an aver- 
sion to the repentance which the truth is fitted to produce. 
It is the “‘ willing ignorance” spoken of in 2 Pet. 111.5. Com- 
pare also the use of dyvoéw in Acts xvii. 233; Rom. x. 3. 
petavoiav| sorrow for, and turning from, the sins that have 
been mentioned, and charged home. dye] the present tense 
denotes the natural tendency and influence of the divine at- 
tribute of goodness. The context shows that this tendency 
was resisted and thwarted. The apostle is not speaking, 
here, of the effectual operation of special grace upon the 
human will, but only of common influences. 


Ver. 5. Not a continuation of the question, but an em- 
phatic affirmative sentence stating the actual fact in the 


38 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


/ \ b 4 he i A 
T™)TAd Gov Kal aweTavontov Kapdiav Inoaupivers cEeavT@ 
> \ > id f > n x > / lal 
opynv év nuépa opyis Kal amroxanrvryews duvxatoxpicias Tod 


case. xata] denotes that the consequence, namely the 
wrath, is according or proportionate to the cause, namely 
the hardness and impenitency. «xapdiavy| the heart, in the 
biblical psychology, includes the will. It inclines, Ps. exix. 
1125 seeks, Deut. iv. 29; lusts, Rom. i. 24; trusts, Prov. xxxi. 
11; purposes, 2 Cor. ix. 7; turns, Luke i. 17; believes, Rom. 
x. 9, 10; repents, Rom. 1. 5. An impenitent heart, conse- 
quently, is culpable, and merits the wrath of God. Compare 
Acts vill. 21, 22. Inoarpiges] the wrath accumulates, like 
waters at a dam, by being held back by the divine dvoyy and 
paxpodupia, ceavto| denotes the individuality and voluntari- 
ness of the process. év yuépa] “in,” or “on,” the day when 
the accumulated wrath will burst the limits of forbearance 
and long-suffering. This day is the great day of final judg- 
ment. dépyys] defines the day of judgment, in reference to 
the wicked. doxadvWews dixaoxpicias| defines the judgment 
day in reference to both the wicked and the good. The lat- 
ter word is found only here in the New Testament. It is 
employed in patristic Greek, and in an anonymous transla- 
tion of Hos. vi. 5, where the Sept. has kpiua. 


Verses 6-16 constitute a paragraph, in which there is a 
train of thought: (suggested by the allusion to the day of 
doom in ver. 5) respecting: 1. The ethical ground of the 
judgment, namely, the character and conduct of men; 2. 
The subjects, Jews and Gentiles; 3. The rule of judgment, 
namely, the moral law, written and unwritten. In this con- 
nection, the apostle was not called upon to say anything 
about righteousness by faith, and therefore it is not men- 
tioned. He speaks of law only, not of the gospel. He de- 
scribes the legal position upon which man stands by creation, 


CHAPTER Il. 6, 7. 39 


ne 88 ’ , a: \ NG 5) i a A 
SJeod, ° b¢ amodéoe ExdoTw KaTa TA Epya avTod, " Tols 
\ ’ e »\ »” >’ nr , \ \ \ 
fev kad viromoviy épyou ayatov do€av Kal Tyuny Kal 


irrespective either of apostacy or redemption, in order to ex- 
hibit the principles upon which reward and penalty are dis- 
tributed under the divine government. This answers the 
objection of those who allege that St. Paul here teaches 
legalism, or righteousness by works. The apostle no more 
contradicts himself here, than when he cites from Moses the 
ethical principle, “The man that doeth those things shall 
live by them,” Rom. x. 5; or when he affirms that, “To him 
that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of 
debt,” Rom. iv. 5. In this paragraph, the writer merely 
enunciates the principles of a universal legislation for moral 
beings. Whether disobedient man can attain salvation by 
them, is a question by itself, abundantly answered in the 
Epistle as a whole. 


. 

Ver. 6. arodeca| applies to the recompense either of re- 
ward, or of punishment; either to remunerative, or retribu- 
tive justice. xara] denotes proportion, as in verse 5. épya| 
the actions are the exponent of the heart, as in Christ’s ac- 
count of the last judgment, in Mat. xxv. 


Vur. 7. xaJ’] “tn proportion to,” as in verses 5 and 6. 
bropovny| denotes patient perseverance, and implieg an abi- 
ding disposition. Compare Luke vill. 15. It is applied to 
hope, faith, and other graces, 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess. i. 4; 
James i. 3. ddgav] 1. the heavenly glory; 2. the divine ap- 
probation, as in John xii. 43. The latter meaning is favored 
by the context. The class of persons spoken of patiently 
labor after an approving sentence in the final judgment: 
after the plaudit, ‘Well done,” Mat. xxv. 21. tv] is the 
honor that comes from the divine approbation. dfJapocar| 
is the blessed immortality consequent upon the divine verdict 


40 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


abIapciay Cntovow Cwiy aiwvov: * Tots bé && épitelas 
\ > ~ a = / 4 x lal > iy > \ 
Kal ameSovor TH adndela, Tevopévors O€ TH adiKia, OpYH 


of approval. The theory of the annihilation of the wicked 
receives no support from this text, because that “ glorious” 
immortality is here intended, in which the body of the be- 
liever alone is raised, 1 Cor. xv. 43; which he “inherits,” 
1 Cor. xv. 50; which he “ puts on,” 1 Cor. xv. 53; to “attain 
unto” which, he toils and suffers, Philip. iii. 11; and which 
he “seeks for,” Rom. ii. 6. It is not that common immortali- 
ty which is neither sought for, nor toiled after, but belongs 
to man merely as man, According to Acts xxiv. 15, both 
the just and the unjust are to be raised from the grave; but 
the resurrection-body of the believer is discriminated from 
that of the unbeliever by the epithet érovpdvov, 1 Cor. xv. 40. 
“ spiritual ” bodies, 
in the sense that they are adapted to a spiritual world; but 


All human bodies at the resurrection are 


only the bodies of the redeemed are ‘ celestial.” The latter 
are raised “in glory” and ‘in power,” 1 Cor. xy. 43; the 
former “awake to shame and everlasting contempt,” Dan. 
xii. 2; the latter come forth from the grave to the ‘‘resur- 
rection of life;” the former to the “resurrection of damna- 
tion,” John y. 29.  wnv] sc. droddca, This is a general 
term denoting all forms of felicity, as Javaros, its contrary, 
denotes‘all forms of misery. The preceding context shows 
that it includes the glorification of the body, as well as the 
blessedness of the soul. aisvov] There being no motive to 
deny that this term when used in connection with the hap- 
piness of heaven signifies endlessness, it is not denied. 


Vur. 8. rots dé] sc.otow, e&] with the genitive epideas, de- 
scribes the trait with reference to its being a root or source 
of action. It is stronger than an adjective. Meyer compares 
€k miotews, ill. 265 €k mepiropys, iv. 12; €& épywv vouov, Gal, iii, 


CHAPTER II. 9. 41 


Kal Supos. ° Dis kal ctevoywpia él tacav >oynv 
avSporou Tod Katepyalouevov TO Kakov, ‘Lovdatov Te Tpa- 


10; & dyarys, Philip. i. 17. épuecas] is not derived from épis, 
as is proved by 2 Cor. xii. 20 and Gal. v. 20, but from épudos, 
a laborer for hire; hence, “mercenary” or “self-seeking.” 
The signification of the term is further explained by the fol- 
lowing clause: Kai dreJotor, etc. The persons spoken of do 
not follow after the truth, for the truth’s sake, but from 
selfish and partisan motives, and there is, consequently, no 
true obedience. The Jew, more than the Gentile, it should 
be noticed, is now in the eye of the writer, and this hire- 
ling and partisan advocacy of the truth was a character- 
istic trait of the Jew: like the trait, previously mentioned 
(ii. 3), of fancied exemption from the trial to which the Gen- 
tile was liable. The passionate and impatient temper of the 
partisan is also the exact contrary of the troyorvn. medome- 
vos] there is no indifference in the will, or negative state of 
the moral disposition. Those who do not obey, positively 
disobey. dépy7 Kai Jupds| sc. droducera, suggested by doda- 
oe in verse 6. dépyy, “wrath,” is the inward feeling, and 
Jvpos, “indignation,” is the external manifestation. Both 
are free from selfish passion. See explanation of Rom. i. 18. 


Ver. 9. In this and the following verse, the writer con- 
cisely repeats, for emphasis, the principles of distributive 
justice enunciated in verses 6-8. JAths Kai orevoxwpia| se. 
amodécerar. The former term refers more to the cause of the 
feeling, and the latter to the feeling itself. The latter is the 
more intense word, as 2 Cor. iv. 8 shows. The etymology (a 
tight or close place) denotes that the feeling is accompanied 
with a sense of helplessness. w vyxiv| denotes the whole man, 
as in Rom, xiii. 1; the higher spiritual part being naturally 
put for the total person; particularly as the punishment, 


42 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


tov kai “EAXnvos: “ dd€a Sé Kal Ty Kai eipyvn TavTt 
TO épyalouévm TO ayadov, Iovéaiw te tpwtov Kal “EXXnve. 

“ Ov yap éoTw TpocwTodAnWia Tapa TO Jeo. “ Soot 
though not exclusively yet principally, falls upon the soul. 
karepyatopévov| the participle is intensive: “ perpetrating.” 
aporov| first in order, as in Acts iii. 26, and first in degree: 
pre-eminence in privileges, if abused, carries pre-eminence in 
condemnation. 


Ver. 10. d0£a kat ty] See comment on Rom. ii. 7. eipyvy| 
is opposed to orevoywpia. It is the term specially chosen by 
Christ to denote the spiritual blessedness of the redeemed. 
Compare John xiv. 27; xvi. 33. Christian peace is twofold: 
1. the pacification of the remorseful conscience, through 
atonement; 2. the removal of the violent antagonism be- 
tween will and conscience and the restoration of the serene 


equilibrium of the soul, through sanctification. 


Ver. 11 assigns the reason of the procedure mentioned in 
verses 9 and 10, and is aimed at the Jew, who claimed special 
privileges before God. mpoowrodAnpia| “partiality,” or greater 
favor to one person than to another, when both have equal 
claims: as in the instance of parent and child, or of the 
government and the citizen. It is impossible that there 
should be partiality in the exercise of mercy, because there 
cannot be an obligation or claim of any kind, in this case. 
God may do as he will with “his own,” that is, with that 
which is not due in justice. See Mat. xx. 10-15. But there 
may be partiality in the administration of justice. A reward 
equally due to two persons may be arbitrarily given to one, 
and arbitrarily refused to the other; one of two criminals 
may be arbitrarily sentenced, and the other arbitrarily re- 
leased, by an earthly judge. No such “respect of persons” 
is found in God. 


Ve $ “ 


\y cy oy) CHAPTER Il. 12, 48 
Te \ x 


yap aVvou“os uapTov, avo“ws Kal amroNodvTaL* Kal dooL 
év vou@ iuapTov, dua vouov KpldncovTal. “ ov yap oi 


Ver. 12. The apostle proceeds to prove his statement that 
God is impartial in the administration of justice, by consid- 
ering the case of the Jew and the Greek respectively. yap] 
introduces the argument. dvdues| without the written or 
Mosaic law. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 21. 7aprov| denotes an 
act deserving of condemnation, and implies the existence of 
an unwritten Jaw; for, sin is impossible without law of some 
kind, according to iv. 15; v.13. Plato (De Legibus, vii. 
838) and Xenophon (Memorabilia, IV. iv. 19) speak of vopos 
dypantos. The unwritten law has already been mentioned 
by implication, in 70 yywordv tov Jeod havepoy év airots, 1. 19. 
An unwritten revelation of the Supreme Being himself in- 
volves an unwritten revelation of his law. The law of con- 
science compared with the written law, differs from and is 
inferior to it, in the following respects: 1. It is less specific; 
2. It is more exposed to honest doubts in particular cases; 
3. It is much more liable to corruption and alteration; 4. Its 
sanctions are less explicit. Notwithstanding these deficien- 
cies, however, the unwritten law is sufficiently clear to be 
transgressed; and sufficiently authoritative to constitute its 
transgression a sin. «at] emphasizes not dvds, but dao- 
Aotv7ar; the-verbs are the emphatic words: ‘as many as have 
sinned shall also perish.” dmododvra] denotes the contrary 
of gwrypia, 1. 16; of Cyoera, i. 17; of Cwm aidvos, ii. 7; and 
consequently implies endless perdition. See comment on 
Savaros, Rom. i. 32. év| “in the sphere of,” or “ under.” 
vouw| is the written law: it is anarthrous, because the Mosaic 
law is meant, The phrase év vouw is the contrary of dvdpos. 
kpiSyjcovra.| denotes a judgment or sentence of condemna- 
tion, as in Luke xix. 22; John iii. 17: “shall be condemned,” 


rather than ‘shall be judged” (Eng. Ver.). St. Paul here 


44 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


> \ r / \ a 5) > c \ ' 
aKpoatal vomov Sixator Tapa Jed, GAN of TownTal vopouv 
dixatwdnoovta, “ (Tay yap éIvn Ta pn vowov eyovTa 


represents the difference between the “perdition” of the 
Gentile and the “condemnation” of the Jew, as one of 
degree, not of kind. Both result from a decision in the last 
day (verse 16), from which there is no appeal. Hopeless- 
ness characterizes both. But the measure of guilt is greater 
in one case than in the other, and the degree of suffering is 
so likewise. Compare Christ’s statement of the case, in Mat. 
xi, 21-24; xii. 41, 42; Luke xii. 47, 48. That servant which 
knew his lord’s will clearly, and did it not, shall be beaten 
with many stripes; and he who knew it not clearly, but knew 
it dimly, and did it not, shall be beaten with few stripes. 


Ver. 13. dxpoarai] refers to the synagogue-reading of the 
Mosaic law. There is no such partiality in God as would 
declare a mere auditor of the law to be righteous. Compare 
James i. 22. déxaor and dixawIyoovrar| signify pronounced 
just, not made just, Luke vil. 29; Rom. ui. 4. Both terms 
denote a declaration or verdict merely, and suppose that the 
righteousness has already been wrought, or produced, upon the 
ground of which the person is “justified.” owmrat| St. Paul 
here states an obvious principle of ethics. He who obeys 
the law will of course be denominated obedient, and declared 
to be a just person. It must be carefully noted, however, 
that the action denoted by zoytat is perfect and complete 
action. It is like that indicated by 6 épya€opuévos in Rom. iv. 
4, and intended in Gal. iii. 10, 12. A partial obedience is 
insufficient. Sinlessness in the inward disposition, and per- 
fection in every outward act, are requisite to constitute a 
motys. This would exclude all such obedience as is spoken 
of in the context, ii. 15, which is accompanied with alterna- 
tions of self-reproach and self-acquittal. diKawdyjcovrar| is 


CHAPTER II. 14. 45 


best connected with ev tepa, in verse 16; because the ver- 
dict is one pronounced by the Great Judge upon the great 
day. ‘There is no conflict, here, with the doctrine of justifi- 
cation by faith. The writer cites an axiom in ethics, name- 
ly, that perfect personal obedience will be recognized and 
rewarded by that impartial Judge who is no respecter of 
persons, and that nothing short of this will be. That any 
man will actually appear before this tribunal with such an 
obedience, is neither affirmed nor denied, in the mere state- 
ment of the principle. The solution of this question must 
be sought for elsewhere in the Epistle. 


Ver. 14. With Lachmann and Meyer, we regard this and 
the following verse as parenthetical. St. Paul interrupts his 
course of thought, in order to illustrate the self-evident 
principle, that only doers and not hearers of the law shall 
be justified, by a reference to acts of morality and immorali- 
ty, and the consequent workings of conscience, in the case of 
a pagan. Whenever the heathen obeys the monitions of 
conscience, in a particular instance, and performs an exter- 
nal virtuous act, his conscience ‘‘ excuses” him. This is 
analogous to God’s justifying the doer of the law, before his 
tribunal on the last day. Whenever, on the contrary, the 
heathen disobeys the command of conscience and does a 
vicious act, his conscience “‘accuses” him. In this case, he 
is a hearer only, and not a doer, and is condemned, and not 
justified. ‘Every man’s conscience,” says Tillotson, “is a 
kind of God to him, and accuseth or absolves him, according 
to the present persuasion of it.” By the phrase: “do by 
nature the things contained in the law,” the writer does not 
mean that sinless and perfect obedience which he has in 
view in of moral vopov, of verse 13, but only something re- 
sembling it, which serves to confirm the particular truth that 
he would enforce. The exegesis of the passage will prove this. 


46 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


dice. Ta TOD vOpoU TOLoW, ODTOL VOpoV pH eXOVTES EaU- 
ois elolv vdpos, ** ofreves évdelxvuvtaL TO gpyov Tov vo- 


Srav|] “‘ Whenever,” denotes a hypothetical case, but one 
that may and does occur. yip| introduces the analogous 
‘nstance in which the principle is illustrated, that not the 
hearer but the doer is justified. vy] is anarthrous, to de- 
note the heathen generally. The adjunct, To pL) VOmOoV EXOVTA, 
shows that no particular pagan is intended. vépov| the writ- 
ten law. dice] “by nature:” that is, from the operation of 
a naturalimpulse. The term implies that the action in ques- 
tion is founded upon something innate. Compare li. 27; 
Gal. ii. 15; iv. 8. St. Paul has in view that spontaneous 
attempt to follow the law of conscience which is seen in 
every act of pagan morality. Whether the act is morally 
perfect or imperfect, holy or selfish, depends upon its mo- 
tive, and must be decided by other considerations than the 
mere signification of vce. Both right and wrong, perfect 
and imperfect actions may be done “ by nature,” that is, from 
a natural impulse. 7a Tod vopou| is not equivalent to 6 vopos, 
in ii. 13, 27. It is fractional, denoting only some particular 
parts of the law, and not the law as a whole. Individual 
statutes, Such as relate to external morality, are meant. The 
pagan does not obey the Jaw in its entirety. That the Apos- 
tle has not in his mind such a spiritual and perfect obedience 
as is attributed to the zoujrat of verse 13, and such as would 
be a ground of justification “in the day when God shall judge 
the secrets of men by Jesus Christ,” is proved by ii. 15, where 
he speaks of an “accusing” conscience as still characterizing 
these very persons who “do by nature the things contained 
in the law;” and by iii. 9-12, where he affirms that Jews and 
Gentiles are “all under sin,” and that “there is none right- 
eous, no not one;” and also by iii. 20, where he asserts that 
“no flesh shall be justified by the deeds of the law,” that is 


CHAPTER Il. 15. 47 


pov ypamrov év tais Kapdiais avTav, cuppaptupotons 
avTav THs cvverdjcews Kal weTaEd GAAjAOY TOV oyLoMeV 


to say, by personal character and conduct. The doctrinal 
unity of the Epistle to the Romans forbids any other inter- 
pretation, to say nothing of the teaching of the Pauline 
Epistles generally, as well as of the other Scriptures. €av- 
Tots vouos| The voice of conscience is authoritative, and men- 
acing. Hence it is naturally denominated a Jaw. Compare 
Aristotle’s véuos dy éavtd, and Cicero’s ipse sibi lex est. 


Ver. 15. otrwes] denotes the class.  évdetkvevrar] “ show 
out,” by the actions designated in mowow. Whenever a 
pagan hears the voice of conscience he is an axpoarns vopov. 
If he disobeys its command, and practises vices like those 
which St. Paul has previously spoken of, he is a hearer and 
not a doer. He is not ‘“‘ justified,” but condemned by his 
“accusing” conscience. If, on the contrary, he refrains 
from a vicious act when tempted, he is a doer as well as a 
hearer of the law. His conscience ‘‘excuses.” And _ al- 
though fear, or self-interest in some form or other, be the 
ruling motive of the act, it still has its justifying force. 
Though the act, in this case, does not spring from love, and 
is not a spiritual and perfect act, yet the conscience does not 
“accuse” the man of yielding. It does not impute a vicious 
act to him. On the contrary, it “excuses,” or “justifies” 
him, guo ad hoc. épyov tov vopov] the particular work which 
the law enjoins: the ‘“ prescript ” of the law. This term, 
also, like ra rod vouov, denotes only an individual statute, in 
distinction from the law as a totality. ypamrov] Compare 
i. 19; and vopos a&ypados (Plato, Laws, viii. 838), vopoe dypaou 
(Thucydides, ii. 37), and voypa dyparra (Sophocles, Antigone, 
454, 455). xapdias| is here put for wvevpare or vwi, as in 1, 
28 vots is put for xapSia, and ini, 9 avetpa is put for xapdia. 


48 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


See comment on i. 9, 28. The apostle has in mind, here, the 
understanding and not the heart; the intellectual perception 
of law and not the affectionate love of it. He is not speak- 
ing of that writing of the law in the human heart which is 
effected in regeneration, alluded to in Jer. xxxi. 33, 34; Heb. 
x. 16,17; 2 Cor. i. 3; but of that engraving of it in the 
human conscience which is effected in creation. That this is 
so, is proved by the substitution, in the context, of cvveidyots 
for xapdia. ovppaptvpovons| conscience co-testifies with the 
prescript of the law, respecting the agreement or disagree- 
ment of the act with the prescript. The statute says: “Thou 
shalt.” Conscience replies, ‘‘Thou hast,” or, “Thou hast 
not.” 'There may also be a reference to the fact that con- 
science, by reason of its rigorous impartiality, seems to be 
an alter ego, objective to’ the man, bearing witness to his 
guilt or innocence as if it were a third party. Compare ix. 1. 
cvvedyoews | con-scientia: the preposition in composition 
here, again, brings to view the dualism in the self-conscious- 
ness. In every act of self-acquittal or self-condemnation, 
there is an apparent duplication of the unity of the ego; 
that is to say, there are two psychological distinctions, one 
of which is the subject acquitting or condemning, and the 
other is the object acquitted or condemned. peraéd] governs 
dAAjAwv, so that the clause is equivalent to évadAaé, “ alter- 
nately.” dddApwy] refers to Aoywpav. The writer has in 
view se/f-condemnation or se/f-acquittal, and not a heathen’s 
blame or praise of another heathen. Aoywpov] “reflections;” 
the term denotes the reflex action of the mind whereby it 
turns in upon itself, and reviews its own agencies. KarT1yo- 
povvtwv| supply eavros: the individuals themselves are the 
objects of the accusation. St. Paul mentions the accusing 
action of conscience first in the order, because this consti- 
tutes the major part of the heathen consciousness. There is 
vastly more of self-reproach than of self-acquittal in the 


CHAPTER II. 15. 49 


pagan experience. Self-condemnation and remorse are the 
rule, because sin is the rule. For descriptions of this con- 
stitutional action of conscience, see Plato’s Republic, i. 330; 
ix. 579. Even when there is a greatly imbruted moral state, 
there is often great remorse. ‘Tiberius says to the Roman 
Senate: ‘ Quid scribam vobis, patres conscripti, aut quomodo 
scribam, aut quid omnino non scribam hoc tempore, dil me 
dezque pejus perdant, quam perire me quotidie sentio, si 
scio.” And upon this Tacitus remarks: ‘“ Adeo facinora 
atque flagitia sua ipsi quoque in supplicium verterant. Neque 
frustra preestantissimus sapienti firmare solitus est, si reclu- 
dantur tyrannorum mentes, posse aspici laniatus et ictus; 
quando, ut corpora verberibus, ita szevitia, libidine, malis 
consultis, animus dilaceretur: quippe Tiberium non fortuna, 
non solitudines protegebant, quin tormenta peccatoris suas- 
que ipse poenas fateretur” (Taciti Ann., vi. 7). See also 
Ann., xiv.10; xv. 36. «ai] whether this be rendered “ even,” 
or “also,” the implication is, that the “excusing” action of 
conscience is something extraordinary ; more uncommon, cer- 
tainly, than the “accusing” action. Had the writer deemed 
the one to be as common as the other, and both to be upon 
a parity, he would not have introduced kal. dzoAoyoupever | 
this word is negative, denoting non-accusation or mere non- 
imputation, rather than positive praise and commendation: 
self-acquittal rather than self-approval. The best pagan life, 
as described in this passage, is not uniform. It is an alterna- 
tion of vicious and virtuous actions, accompanied with an al- 
ternating experience of self-reproach and self-acquittal. And 
in the alternation, the “accusing” far outruns the ‘ excus- 
ing,” because the vice springs from an abiding disposition, 
while the virtue springs merely from a momentary volition. 
The former is the index of the real inclination, while the lat- 
ter is the exceptional product of the will under the influence 
of fear or some prudential motive. Consequently, the “ ex- 
3 


50 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


cusing ” action of conscience, in the case referred to, is not 
equivalent to ‘‘the answer of a good conscience toward 
God,” 1 Pet. iii, 21. This non-imputation of sin, or ‘justi- 
fication” of the pagan, is relative only. It is not absolute 
and perfect, like that of the unfallen angels, which is founded 
upon sinless perfection, or like that of redeemed sinners, 
which is founded upon the righteousness of Christ. But 
though only an imperfect and relative justification, it fur- 
nishes an analogue by which to illustrate the dictum, that 
not the mere hearer but the doer is justified. 

The defects in pagan virtue are the same that are seen in 
the legality, or morality of the nominal Christian. 1. It is 
fragmentary: not the ruling and steady disposition of the 
person, but a fractional and intermittent activity. 2. It 
springs from the impulse of self-interest, and not from the 
love and adoration of God. 3. It is vitiated by the pride of 
egotism. True and perfect virtue, like that of the seraphim, 
and of Christ, is meek and lowly. See Isa. vi. 2, 3; Mat. v. 
5; xi. 29. An extreme instance is mentioned by Plutarch 
(On the Contradiction of the Stoics). Chrysippus remarks: 
“As it well beseems Jupiter to glory in himself and his life, 
to magnify himself, and, if we may so say, to bear up his 
head and have a high conceit of himself, so the same things 
do not misbeseem all good men, who are in nothing exceeded 
by Jupiter.” Of the same spirit is the demand, attributed 
to Marcus- Aurelius, addressed to the deity: “Give me my 
dues.” It was in this reference, and as tested by spiritual 
tests, that Augustine denominated the virtues of the pagans, 
splendida vitia. In looking, therefore, for hopeful indica- 
tions in paganism, the search should be to discover a sense 
of sin, rather than an assertion of virtue. The virtue of 
Socrates, as delineated in the Platonic Dialogues, though 
lofty and attractive, judged by a human standard, is defec- 
tive. He himself acknowledges that the philosophic ideal. of 


CHAPTER II. 16. a 


/ By! \ > / eet e / iv4 
KATNYOPOVVTMV 7) Kat aTrodoyoumEvov) “ év iwépa STE Kpt- 
a is XN a 
vel 0 Jeos Ta KpUTTA TOV avIpeOTaV KaTa TO evaryyéddY 


character is not reached by any man. His own moral esti- 
mates of some of the horrible vices of his time were indul- 
gent, and deficient in ethical energy. And that cutting, 
contemptuous irony, and sense of superiority, with which 
Socrates often deals with the faults and transgressions of his 
fellow men, evinces that he had not attained to the gentle 
and compassionate virtue of St. Paul, as expressed in Gal. 
vi. 1. Moreover, the Socratico-Platonic view of sin, which 
makes it to be ignorance, and, sometimes at least, represents 
it to be involuntary, is theoretically unfavorable to virtue. 


Ver. 16. év jpépa] has been connected with dixavodjoovra 
(Lachmann, Meyer); with kpudjoovrar (Beza, Grotius, Gries- 
bach, Winer); with évéefkvuvtac (Bengel, Tholuck); with ézo- 
Aoyoupevwov (Rosenmiiller, Koppe). Either xpuIjoovrat or dixae- 
odyoovra may naturally be connected with jpépa, because the 
condemnation or the justification alike denote an objective 
judicial decision, such as is passed on the day of judgment. 
But dixarodjoov7a, being the nearer antecedent, is preferable. 
The action, on the other hand, denoted by the clause xarnyo- 
povyTwv 7) Kal aroAoyoupévwv is subjective, occurs as much upon 
one day as another, and is sometimes favorable and some- 
times adverse. There is alternate accusation and excuse. 
But no such alternation in consciousness is possible on the 
day when God shall pass a final judgment. xpwet] may de- 
note a judicial sentence, either favorable or unfavorable; the 
context must decide which it is. «pura this term most nat- 
urally refers to sins. Men do not keep their righteousness 
secret from others. The sentence intended, consequently, is 
that of condemnation. xara rd edayyediov| the day of judg- 
ment, and the mode of judicial procedure, are particularly 


5D COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


pov dia Xptotod “Incod. “ ef 5é od “Iovdatos érrovomaty 
Kal érravatrain vino Kal kavyaca ev Se@ Kal ywookes 
revealed in the New Testament, and in connection with the 
doctrine of redemption. Compare Mat. xxv.; John vy. 28, 
29; Acts xvii. 31; 1 Cor. iv. 5. pov] is used officially, here, 
and in xvi. 25. St. Paul speaks as an ambassador of Christ, 
“in Christ’s stead.” 
“all judgment is committed to the Son,” John v. 22, 27; 
Acts xvii. 31, et alia. The Redeemer of man is officially the 


Compare 2 Cor. vi. 20. dua Xpurrod] 


Judge of man. 


Ver. 17. St. Paul, in verses 17-24, now applies the maxim 
that not mere hearers but doers of the law shall be justified, 
to the Jew. In an anacoluthon (verses 17-20), and an anti- 
thetic interrogative sentence (verses 21-24), which taken 
together are equivalent to protasis and apodosis, he charges 
them with hearing and not doing. The same charge is vir- 
tually made by St. James, i. 22, 23. «i de] is supported by 
SABD Peshito, Copt., Aiuthiop., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. 6€ is 
transitive: ‘‘ Now,” the case being so, that a mere hearer 
shall not be justified, “if thou art,” etc. “Iovdaios] a name 
denoting theocratic honor: ‘Judah, thou art he whom thy 
brethren shall praise ;” A777 Ome HAM, Gen. xlix. 8. Com- 
pare also Gen. xxix. 35; Rev. ii. 9. erovouccy] “art styled;” 
perhaps the middle signification is preferable. éravazavy] 
denotes entire confidence. The Jew had no doubt that the 
decalogue was an infallible rule of conduct, and the Mosaic 
economy a divine institution. And this confidence had de- 
generated into a blind trust, as if the mere possession of 
such a law were enough. véu@| anarthrous (SABD Lach., 
Tisch.), because, as in verse 14, the Mosaic law is meant, 
which is equivalent to a proper name. | xavyéoa:] the Jew 
had reason to glory in the God of Israel, in the good sense, 


CHAPTER II. 18, 19. 53 


NS UA \ s 

TO JéAnwa Kal Soxyates ta Swahépovta, Kxatyyovpevos 
> nr , € , c nan 
€K TOU Vomov,  TéTOLds TE TEAUTOV OdNYOV EivaL TUPABY, 


of adoration and praise (v. 11; 1 Cor. i. 31), but the feeling 
had become mere boasting (2 Cor. x. 15; Gal. vi. 13). 


Ver. 18. 76 JeAnua] the will of God as revealed in the 
Jewish scriptures. doxyacets Ta duadeporTa. | compare Phila 
10. This clause will be explained, according as the several 
significations of the words are chosen and combined.  do«i- 
pate may mean: 1. to examine, or test, as in Luke xiv. 19, 
1 Cor, iii. 18, 1 John iv. 1; 2. to understand, or discern (a 
result of the act of examining), as in Luke xu. 56, Rom. 
xi. 2, 2 Cor. viii. 22, Eph. v. 10; 3. to approve of, or to 
like (another result of examining), as in 1 Cor. xvi. 3, Rom. 
i, 28, xiv. 22. duadgpew may mean: 1. to differ, merely, as 
in Gal. ii. 6, iv. 1; 2. to differ for the better, i. e. to excel, as 
in Mat. vi. 26, xii. 12, 1 Cor. xv. 41. Hence, several render- 
ings of the clause: 1. “‘ Thou approvest the things that are 
more excellent” (Eng. Version); 2. ‘‘Thou discernest the 
things that are obligatory” (Peshito); 3. ‘ Thou testest the 
things that differ” (Erasmus); 4. “Thou discernest the 
things that differ.” The last is preferable, because the ref- 
erence is to casuistry, or the settlement of nice questions in 
morals, upon which the Jew plumed himself. This is, also, 
the better rendering of the parallel passage in Phil. 1. 10, 
because in verse 9 the writer mentions ‘‘knowledge” and 
“judgment” as the particular means by which his readers 
were doxyulew Ta diapépovta, Katnyovpevos| this ethical dis- 
cernment was the fruit of catechetical and synagogical in- 
struction in the Old Testament, particularly the decalogue. 
The participle has an explanatory force: “‘ because thou art 
instructed in the law” (Peshito). 


Ver. 19. wérodds| implies personal assurance and un- 


54 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


a A / 
bas TOV ev oKdTEL, ” TaLdevTHY adpovwv, SiddoKadov 
UnTiwVv, ExovTAa THV moppwoLw THs yvooews Kal THS ady- 
Jeias €v TO VvOUe, * 0 ody SiOdoKwY ETEpoV TEaUTOV Ov 


bounded confidence. ze] “furthermore:” the particle directs 
attention to a feature that adds decidedly to the description. 
odnyov | this term, together with Pas and waidevriy and didacKa- 
Aov, refers both to the original intention of God that the sal- 
vation of the world should come out of the Jewish nation, 
and to the proselytizing disposition of the Jew. ruddAdrv] to- 
gether with oxdre, and adpovev, denotes the Gentile or pagan 
world. Compare Isa. lx. 25 xlix. 6; Mat. xv. 14; Luke i. 
a2; John i. 5. 


VeER. 20. vytiwv] novitiates introduced probationally into 
the Jewish congregation. pdppocw | the particular prescripts 
of the written law constitute a form, or scheme, correspond- 
ing to the inward essence of the law. Law requires to be 
embodied in statutes. yvécews and ddyJelas]| denote two 
phases of the same thing: the moral and religious truth 
contained in the law is something to be cognized by the hu- 
man mind, Truth should be knowledge, and knowledge 
should be truth; and in knowing the decalogue, the two 
things were secured to the Jew. 


Ver. 21. The casting of the apodosis into an interroga- 
tive form brings out more vividly than would an affirmative 
proposition, the contrast between the Jew’s knowledge and 
the Jew’s conduct, and shows clearly that he is a mere hearer 
and not a doer of the Jaw. «Aérrew] this infinitive, like pouyed- 
ew, does not require dev to be supplied, because the notion 
of a command is contained in the governing verbs. Com- 
pare Winer, § 44 b. St. James, v. 4, charges the sin of de- 
frauding the laborer upon the Jew; and Asaph accuses the 
people of theft and adultery, Ps. 1. 18. 


CHAPTER IL. 22-24. 55 


/ Ms rg 

duddoKes; 0 KnpvocwY fn KréTTEW KreTTELS ; ™ O Aéyou 
Hy pouxevery povyevers ; 0 BdeMvacdpevos TA Eldwdra lepo- 
auneis ; “ Os ev voum Kavyaoa, Sia THS TapaBdcews Tod 

, \ 2 n a > 
vowov Tov Jeov atiudtes; “Td yap dvoua Tod Jeod di 
‘ean a > a yy \ L 
tuas Bracdnpettas €v tots EIverw, xados yéyparras. 


_ Ver. 22. porxevers] Christ frequently charges this sin upon 
the Jews, Mat. xii. 39; xvi. 4; Mark viii. 38. The ancient 
prophets often make the charge, Jer. v. 7; vii. 9; Mal. iii. 5. 
Compare James iv. 4. PdeAvacdpevos] the term denotes the 
disgust caused by a bad odor. tepoovAcis] 1. Robbing pagan 
temples, which was forbidden, lest the people should be cor- 
rupted by the spoil, Deut. vil. 25; Acts xix. 37; 2 Mae. iv. 
42; Josephus, Antiq., IV. viii. 10 (Chrysostom, De Wette, 
Fritzsche, Meyer). 2. Withholding of tithes, and thus rob- 
bing the Jewish temple, Mal. i. 8, 9. There is also, per- 
-haps, a reference to the desecration of the temple rebuked 
by Christ, Mat. xxi. 13; John ii. 16 (Grotius, Michaelis, 
Ewald). 3. Irreverence toward God, and profanation of 
the Divine majesty, Ezek. xxxvi. 33 (Luther, Calvin, Ben- 
gel, Hodge). Either the second or third is preferable to the 
first view, because the instances in which pagan temples 
were robbed by Jews were too infrequent to found a general 
charge upon. «avyacac] compare comment on ii. 17%. tov 
Jeov] the article denotes the true God, the author of the law. 
dtysdes| the dishonor is described in the following verse. 


Ver. 24. yap] introduces the proof that God is dishonored. 
du tuas] “on account of your conduct.” Bracdnetrar] when 
applied to man, denotes calumny, Rom. ili. 8; and contempt, 
or blasphemy, when applied to God. yéyparra:] in 2 Sam. 
m4 Neh. v. 9; Isa. lu. 5; Ezek. xxxvi. 23. 


Ver. 25. A new objection begins here. The failure of 
the Jew, like the Gentile, to keep the law has been proved. 


56 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


25 \ \ \ 2: a oN: , L ii \ \ 
TeptToun pev yap wperel, cay vouov mpdoons' éav 6é 
TapaBaTns vo“ov 7S, 1) TeplTo“y Gov akpoBvaTia yeyove. 


The thought now occurs to the Jew that he is in special cov- 
enant-relations with God. The apostle takes this point into 
consideration: “ You speak of circumcision: this is a bene- 
fit, if you keep the law; otherwise you have no advantage 
over the uncircumcised.” ev] ‘‘ Circumcision, indeed, if 
that is in your mind.” @edet] how it profits is stated in 
ili. 2; iv. 11. 1. Cireumcision, like a seal upon a document, 
formally authenticates the fact that the Jews alone, of all 
peoples, have been taken into covenant by the invisible God, 
and are under his special protection, for a certain particular 
purpose which he intends to accomplish by them, 2. This 
covenant puts the Jews in possession of a written revelation, 
which the Gentile world did not have. St. Paul (iii. 2) states 
that this is the principal benefit (mp@rov 67c) accruing to them 
from the covenant. édav zpacoys| The benefits of the cove- 
nant of circumcision, between Jehovah and Israel, were con- 
ditioned upon “ keeping his statutes, and his commandments, 
and his judgments,” Deut. xxvi. 1%. The word apaooys de- 
notes here a perfect performance, like worys in i. 138. Only 
in case of a complete fulfilment of the terms of the covenant 
upon his own side, was the Jew legally entitled to the bless- 
ings promised upon God’s side. ‘‘ Every man that is cireum- 
cised is a debtor to do the whole law,” Gal. v. 3. This is 
how the matter stands upon principles of justice, with which 
alone St. Paul is concerned at this point. The Jewish objec- 
tor appeals to justice. He claims justification before God, 
because God has made a covenant with him and sealed it 
with circumcision. Upon this ground he maintained that a 
Jew would not be condemned at the last day. Meyer quotes 
from a Jewish Rabbi, the assertion: ‘ Quandoquidem cir- 
cumcisi sumus, in infernum non descendimus.” voor] is fre- 


CHAPTER Il. 25. Bia 


quently employed by St. Paul to denote the Old Testament 
economy as a whole. This economy was two-fold, having a 
legal and an evangelical phase: the former preparatory to 
the latter, Gal. iv. 24-26. The apostle here has the legal 
phase in view. He is considering the covenant of circum- 
cision as a covenant of works. As such, its benefits de- 
pended upon the perfect performance of the conditions. 
“ Circumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the command- 
ments of God,” 1 Cor. vii. 19. Compare Gal. v. 6; vi. 15. 
These conditions were never perfectly performed by any Jew 
whatsoever. Two courses might be taken. 1. The Jew 
might assume the attitude of the “ Jew outwardly,” Rom. i. 
28, and demand the fulfilment of the covenant upon God’s 
part, because of the circumcision of the flesh, without the 
circumcision of the heart (Deut. x. 16; Jer. iv. 4; Coloss. ii. 
11), and because of moral and ceremonial obedience. This 
was formalism and legality, and to be met, as St. Paul meets 
it here, by a strict application of the principles of justice as 
involved in the covenant itself. 2. The Jew might take the 
attitude of the ‘Jew inwardly,” Rom. ii. 29, who knowing 
that his obedience though sincere and spiritual was yet im- 
perfect, and therefore not sufficient to found a claim for jus- 
tification upon, cast himself upon the Divine promise made 
to Abraham and to faith in the Messiah. In this. case, the 
legal covenant of circumcision prepared the way for the 
evangelical covenant of grace: both covenants being com- 
prised in the Old Economy. epirouy axpoBvortia yéyover | 
Since, according to 1 Cor, vii. 19, “circumcision is nothing, 
and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the com- 
mandments of God” [is everything], it follows that the ab- 
sence of obedience will render the first of these “ nothings,” 
or non-essentials, as valueless as the second. The Jew, if 
disobedient, derives no benefit from the covenant. The 
written revelation does not profit him, and the abused bless- 


5* 


58 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


*° gay obv 1) akpoBvoTia Ta SiKaLwLaTa TOD voLOU pUhdoon, 
n \ / g 
ody 7) axpoBvaTia avTod els TepLTouny oyioInoeTat, *' Kal 


ings of the theocracy increase his condemnation. He is no- 
better off than a Gentile. 


Ver. 26. % dxpoBvoria] is put for 6c dxpoBvoro.. ducaudpara.| 
the statutes severally of the véuos. ev dvidoon] perfect 
keeping of the law is meant, as in i, 13, 25. That it is only 
a hypothesis, for the sake of the argument, and not an actual 
case, is evident from the context. It is improbable that St. 
Paul concedes instances of perfect obedience amongst the 
pagans, in the very midst of an argument to prove that there 
are none such among the Jews. aitrov| instead of airis, be- 
cause the concrete person is meant by 7) dxpoPvotia. Aoyis- 
Inoera] This passage clearly illustrates the meaning of gra- 
tuitous imputation. There is no circumcision, confessedly, 
in the case of the Gentile, yet it is reckoned, or regarded, as 
belonging to the Gentile. This may be done for the same 
reason that “circumcision becomes uncircumcision ” (verse 
25); namely, because the perfect obedience of the law which 
is supposed in the case is the essential thing, and makes the 
non-essential of uncircumcision to be as good as the non- 
essential of circumcision. 


Ver. 27. This verse may be regarded: 1. as continuing 
the question (Eng. Version, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Lach- 
mann, Philippi, Wordsworth); 2. as categorical (Chrysost., 
Hrasmus, Luther, Bengel, De Wette, Tholuck, Meyer, 
Tisch.). According to this latter view, the question ends 
with verse 26, and the affirmative “ yes,” is mentally supplied 
at the beginning of verse 27. The interrogative construc- 
tion is the simpler of the two, and xpwet may have the em- 
phatic force indicated by its position, as easily as with the 
categorical construction, «pwet] denotes condemnation, the 


CHAPTER Il. 28. 59 


Lal e oJ PA > , \ / a \ x 
Kpwet % éx pioews axpoBvoTia Tov vo“ov TEdovCA cE TOV 
dia ypadpatos Kai Tepitoyhs mapaBatnv vopou ; ** ov yap 
o év T@ davep@ Iovdaids eat, ovdé n ev TO Hhavep@ ev 


contrary of «is repitouny AopoIjoerat, Which stands for justifi- 
cation. If a Gentile should perfectly obey the law, he would 
thereby demonstrate, positively, the justice of his own ac- 
quittal, and, negatively, that of the condemnation of the dis- 
obedient Jew. ék dicews| “by birth: ” Gal. ii. 15. TeAotca| 
the participle has a conditional force: “If it fulfil” (Eng. 
Ver.). Had the writer intended to assert an actual fulfil- 
ment of the law, he would have written } teAotoa. dia ypap- 
patos] the instrumental genitive. The Jew, by a perverted 
use of them, converts the written law and the rite of circum- 
cision, into the means and instruments of sin. It is an in- 
stance in which disobedience and death are wrought out by 
means of “that which is good,” vil. 13. There is no need of 
attributing to 6.4 the ‘ loose” sense of “ being in possession 


of (Winer, p. 379). 


Ver. 28. In the first proposition, the ellipsis is in the sub- 
ject: od yap 6 év 7d davepe ["lovdaios], “lovdatds éorw. In the 
second proposition, the ellipsis is in the predicate: otdé 4 ev 
To pavep@ ev capki mepitoyn [Tepitopy é€otw]. Other arrange- 
ments multiply the ellipses, by finding them in both subject 
and predicate together. ydap| introduces a statement which 
is to confirm the positions that have been taken in verses 26 
and 27. davepd| denotes what is visible to the eye of sense, 
namely, circumcision, fasting, phylacteries, attendance upon 
ceremonies, etc. “Iovdaids] is emphatic by position, and does 
not require dAnJwds to be supplied. The same truth is 
taught in ix. 6,7. év capxi| is explanatory of év 7 davepo. 
It is here employed as the opposite of rvedua. As thus anti- 
thetic to each other, capé denotes what is pretended and for- 


60 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


\ 7, 29 («9 Dat ? a ee} a ‘ 
capKi Tepitoun, “ arX Oo €v TH KpuTTT® “Lovdatos, Kat 
TEplTo“N Kapdlas ev TvEvpaTL Ov YypdLpatt, OV O EmaLvos 
ovk €& avd p@Twv ara Ex TOD JEod. 


mal, and zvetya what is genuine and true. Compare John 
iv. 23; Rom. i. 9. eprrouy] merely physical circumcision 
does not comprise all that God intended, when he established 
the rite. It is therefore not real and full circumcision. 


Ver. 29. The ellipsis is in the predicate in both proposi- 
tions (Beza, De Wette, Tholuck): 6 & 16 xpum7é “lovdatos 
[Tovdatos €orw], Kal mepitoun Kapdias ev mvevpatt od ypdppare 
| reptropy €or]. €v kputt@] the contrary of é& davepe, refer- 
ring to the inward disposition which is hidden from the eye 
of man. Compare 7a kpumra in ii. 16. The Jew was marked 
off from the Gentile by the rite of circumcision, and by the 
observance of the Mosaic law. If these marks were outward 
merely, he was a Jew outwardly; if inward, that is, if the 
heart was circumcised and the obedience spiritual, he was a 
Jew inwardly. eprropi xapdias] is explanatory of év kpurre 
*Tovdaios. The Jew inwardly is one whose circumcision is not 
a mere surgical operation (xetporoujros, Coloss. ii. 11), but 
that of the heart (Deut. x. 16; Jer. iv. 4). & wvevpart] ex- 
plains kapdias. It denotes, here, the inner man, as opposed 
to the outer. Compare 2 Cor. iv. 16. Some commentators 
(Calvin, De Wette, Fritzsche, Meyer, Hodge) refer mvetpa to 
the Holy Spirit as producing this inward circumcision and 
obedience, in sanctification, The objections to this are: 
1. that xapdias does not have this signification; 2. that év 
avevuartt is employed as the contrary of év capxi, in a techni- 
eal manner; and, 3. that the introduction of the Person of 
the Holy Spirit in his office of sanctification at this point in 
the epistle would be premature. St. Paul reserves this topic, 
until after he has discussed justification. Compare vy. 5; vi.— 


CHAPTER II. 29. 61 


vill. That this inward and spiritual Judaism is the work of 
the Holy Spirit is a truth subsequently taught. od ypappare| 
defines, negatively, the meaning of év aveviyarr. Merely ex- 
ternal circumcision was obedience of the letter of the law; 
merely external obedience is the same thing. Language is 
an imperfect medium of ideas, especially of religious ideas. 
It suggests more than it says. He who sticks in the letter 
(in the phrase of Horace), loses the deeper spiritual mean- 
ing. Hence, obedience of the mere letter of a law may be 
not only failure to obey, but actual disobedience itself. Con- 
quently év ypappar denotes the same as év davepo and €v capki. 
For the technical antithesis between spirit and letter, see vii. 
6; 2 Cor. iii. 6. ot] the masculine is employed, because the 
concrete person is meant. Compare airov, in 11. 26. €rawos| 
is, perhaps, an allusion to Gen. xlix. 8: “Judah, thou art he 
whom thy brethren shall pradse.” Compare Gen. xxix. 35. 


CHAPTER III. 


‘Ti obv TO teptcodv tod *Iovdalov, %) Tis ) w@pedeva 
THS TWepiTomhs ; ° TWoAD KaTa TaVvTa TpOTTOV. TpWTOV MEV 


THE objection occurs that if the Jew, equally with the 
Gentile, is a hearer and not a doer of the law, and like the 
Gentile cannot be justified by the law, then Judaism has no 
superiority of any kind over Paganism. The first eight 
verses of this chapter contain an answer to this objection. 


Ver. 1. ovy| introduces the objection. What “then,” in 
view of what has been said respecting the Jew, in chapter 11. 
It is immaterial, whether the objection be regarded as made 
by the Jew, or by St. Paul from the logical movement of his 
own thought. 76 repurcov] the plus, or overplus: something 
additional to the natural religion and ethics described in 
i. 19, 20; ii. 14-17. 4] “or, in other words.” dapédeta Tis 
mepitops| explains zepurodv. Whatever superiority there 
was, was connected with the Abrahamic covenant of cir- 
cumcision. 


Ver. 2. mdvra tpdrov| “in whatever manner it be viewed.” 
mpatov pe] “first,” with no secondly. Compare i. 8; 1 Cor. 
xi. 18. Calvin and Beza render preecipue; Eng. Ver. 
“chiefly.” The fact that the particular which he is about 
to mention is first in order, implies that it is first in im- 
portance. The possession of the written revelation is the 
principal prerogative of the theocracy. ‘Tischendorf and 
Meyer, following NADL, insert ydép (‘‘ namely”) after pev; 


CHAPTER III. 3. 63 


e a a 
Ort emiotevdnoav Ta AGyLa TOD Jeod. * Ti yap, El HTioTN- 
ody TWeES ; pI) ) aTTLoTia avTwY THY TiaTW TOD JEod KaTAap- 


we omit it, following Lachmann BDEG Peshito, Copt., 
Asthiop., Vulg. émoreidnoav| “were intrusted with.” See 
Winer, p. 229, Thayer’s Ed. A formal bestowment, and 
a solemn commission, are intended, ‘The Jews were the 
depositaries of revelation by divine appointment. Ady] 
“oracles:” the term denotes special disclosures from God. 
This is the meaning in classical writers. For the Biblical 
usage, compare Acts vii. 38; Heb. v. 12; 1 Pet. iv. 11. 
These oracles comprise supernatural instruction: 1. re- 
specting the moral law and man’s disobedience of it; 2. 
respecting God’s mercy. The revelation intrusted to the 
Jewish theocracy contained the decalogue, and the Messi- 
anic promises and prophecies: the law and the gospel to- 
gether. The latter, especially, constituted a high preroga- 
tive. As the depositary of the only certain and authentic 
information possessed by man respecting the forgiveness of 
sin and a blessed immortality, the Jew had a great mepiooov 
over the Gentile. 


Ver. 3. yap] introduces an argument to answer an objec- 
tion that is not formally stated, but is implied in the answer: 
namely, that the Jews have not believed these oracles. The 
argument is, that disbelief of the promise does not invalidate 
the promise. %micrnoay] the unbelief, though covering the 
whole revelation yet related more to the gospel than to the 
law; more to the Messiah than to the decalogue. The Jews, 
previous to the Advent, had misinterpreted the Messianic 
prophecies, and had desired a merely temporal prince and 
savior; and since the Advent, they had positively rejected 
Jesus Christ. ties] “some:” not all. Says God: “TI have 
reserved to myself seven thousand men who have not bowed 


64 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


not ; * pry yévouto: yuvecIw dé 6 Iecs adyInjs, Tas 6é dv- 
Spwrros evorns, Kadatep yéyparrrat “Oras adv Sikarodis 
év Tois Aoyols Gov Kal WKIoHS év TO Kplverdal ae. * Eb 
the knee to Baal;” and St. Paul adds: “ Even at this pres- 
ent time, also, there is a remnant according to the election 
of grace,” xi. 4,5. Up to the time of St. Paul, the majority 
of the people of Israel had been unbelievers in the true Mes- 
siah, yet he speaks of them as twes. ‘The remark of Lange 
(in loco) explains this: “In view of the certain final fulfil- 
ment of the Divine promise, this mass of apostate Jews is 
only a small crowd of individuals, some.” See xi. 20, 26. 
pij| the subjective negative implies an answer in the nega- 
tive. aiotw] with Jeod in the subjective genitive, means 
“credibility,” or trustworthiness. Compare 2 Tim. ii. 13; 
1 Cor. i. 9. katapyyoe| is a strong word, denoting total de- 
struction, or annihilation. It is frequently used by St. Paul; 
and in the New Testament is found outside of the Pauline 
Epistles only in Luke xiii. 7: a linguistic evidence for the 
Pauline supervision of this gospel. 


Ver. 4. pi) yévorro| a denial accompanied with abhorrence: 
absit, “far be it;” ‘God forbid” (Eng. Ver.). It is equiva- 
lent to m555n, which the Septuagint (Gen. xliv. 17) trans- 
lates pa yévorro. Compare the Latin ad profana, and the 
English, “To the devil.” ywéoIw] is equivalent to davepevc- 
Jo. The notion of a development, or manifestation, is ex- 
pressed by yivouat, wevotys| Compare Ps. exvi. 11. yéypaz- 
ta] in Ps. li. 4. dikawwIys| the forensic meaning here is 
indisputable. God cannot be made just. xpiv:o9ai| is best 
taken in the middle signification: ‘‘in thy litigating, or con- 
test ” (Beza, Bengel, Tholuck, Meyer). In the court, before 
which God is represented as condescending to implead, he is 
victor. It should be noticed, that St. Paul does not here 


CHAPTER III. 5,6. 65 


. Lal wn s / nw 
dé 7) dodixkia nudv Jeod Stxaiociynv cuvictnot, Ti épod- 

\ sy & 3S iS rd 7 X\ ’ / nh ” 
fev ; pn adiKos O eos O emepépwv THY opynv; KATA av- 
Jpwrrov Neyo. ° wip yévouTo* Emel TAS KpLvEel O eos Tov 


resort to syllogistic reasoning to prove God’s veracity, but 
to the idea of God, as that of a necessarily perfect Being. 
Even if, by so asserting, all finite beings should be proved to 
be false, yet the assertion that the Infinite Being is true 
must be maintained. The conception of the Infinite neces- 
sitates this. 


Ver. 5 contains an objection from a confessed transgres- 
sor. it may be raised by both Jew and Gentile convicted of 
sin by the previous reasoning, or by the apostle for them. 
The use of ov, and the interrogative form, favors the latter 
view. The objection is suggested by ducawdIys and vKkyoes: 
“Granting the fact of sin, since sin results in the glory of 
God why should it be punished?” dduKéa] is more generic 
than dmwria (verse 3), and comprises unrighteousness of 
every kind. dcatocvvyv] is also generic, embracing right- 
eousness of every kind. ouviornow] “ evinces,” or ‘ demon- 
strates.” The word denotes a thorough and complete proof. 
Compare v. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 11; Gal. ii. 18. jy] the subjective 
negative implies not only a negative answer, but a hesitation 
in even putting the question. The objecter does not feel 
that the objection is a strong one, as the té épotwev also indi- 
cates. Kara avJpwrov] “as men are wont to speak.” Tho- 
luck observes that this phrase, like ri épotwev, is charac- 
teristic of Rabbinical argumentation, and shows the apostle’s 
training. 


rd Ver. 6. ézei] ‘‘since,” if this were true, i.e. més «pet | 
The emphasis is to be placed upon xpwet. If to punish the 
wicked is ‘injustice, how can God exercise the office of a 
judge? «ocpov| not the pagan world, whom the Jew ac- 


66 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


s fe eed \ (ers) , cr roland Aas ok Ze 
Koopov ; "ei yap 9 adajteva Tov Jcod ev TO Ea evopaTte 
emrepiacevoev eis THY SoEav avTod, Ti ETL Kaw WS apmap- 
Twos Kpivouar; “Kai pn Katdws Brachnwovpeda Kal 


knowledged could be justly punished (Reiche, Olshausen), 
but the whole world (De Wette, Tholuck, Meyer). 


Ver. 7 returns to the objection stated in verse 5; restat- 
ing and expanding it. This makes the sentiment of verse 6 
somewhat premature, logically considered. The apostle, in 
the energy of his conception, repels the objection with ab- 
horrence and argues against it, before he has fully concluded 
the statement of it. The reading «i yap is preferable, being 
supported by BDEGL Peshito, Vulg., Rec., Lachm., Tisch., 
1859. The reading «i dé is supported by SA Copt., Tisch., 
1872. yap resumes the statement of the objection: “for, 
the sinner might say, ‘If,’ etc.” ddA7Jea] refers back to éAx- 
Ins in verse 4. Wevopari] is one form of the ddr«ca of verse 5, 
by which the righteousness of God is ‘‘commended.” — ézepio- 
cevoev| ‘appears more abundant.” ddgav| corresponds to 
duxavoovvyvy auvicryow of verse 5: that which evinces God’s 
righteousness promotes God’s glory. «éyw| is correlative to 
T® ean. Kpivouor] denotes a condemning judgment. 


Ver. 8 continues the restatement and expansion of the 
objection: ‘* Why should not we not only be free from pun- 
ishment, but also continue to sin, in order to cause God’s 
glory to abound still more?” After xai] supply 72 With 
| supply either A€ywomey (Calvin), or zowjowpmey (Luther, 
Bengel), or regard 6tu as a recitative particle and construe 
wy With roujowopey (Vulg., Erasmus, Beza). The last is sim- 
plest. PAacdypovpeda] when applied to man signifies calum- 
ny, or slander. activ] the difference between this and A¢€yew 
is exemplified in 1 Cor. x. 12. The first denotes affirmation, 
the last recital merely. The attribution, by the Jews, of this- 


CHAPTER III. 9. 67 


, Ud (tal Yj 4 WZ \ SEZ 
Katos haciv tives nuas EyeLY OTL TOWjTMMEY TA KAKA Wa 
eAJn Ta ayada ; av TO Kpiwa évd.iKov éativ. 

9 (aoe) Be 9 > , , 9 

Ti ovv ; Tpoeyoueta ; ov TavtTws: mpontiacdueta 

aN ’ / 4 Ni CH, / e AN id , Pairs 
yap “Lovdaious te cai “ENAnvas ravtas bo duaptiay eivat, 


maxim of the Jesuits to the early Christians, probably sprung 
from the Christian’s neglect of the ceremonial law and or- 
dinances. dy] those, namely, who adopt such a principle. 
St. Paul does not condescend formally to argue in proof 
that such a principle is false, but dismisses it as intuitively 
damnable. 


Ver. 9. ti otyv| supply éorw: “what, then, is the state of 
the case?” The connection of thought, through ody, is with 
iii. 1, 2. The apostle, in these verses, speaks of a particular 
“advantage” possessed by the Jew. He now raises the in- 
quiry whether it is of such a nature as to imply moral su- 
periority. mpoexdueda] 1. the middle voice for the active: 
“do we excel?” (Peshito, Vulg., Eng. Ver., Theophylact, 
Luther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, De Wette, Alford, 
Hodge); 2. the middle voice: “can we screen or defend our- 
selves ?” or, “have we anything for a pretext ?” against the 
charge of being sinners, i. e. (Venema, Fritzsche, Meyer); 
3. the passive voice: “are we [Jews] surpassed” [by the 
Gentiles]? or, ‘‘are we [Gentiles] surpassed” [by the 
Jews]? (Cicumenius, Wetstein, Olshausen). The first is 
by far preferable. The only objection to it is, that there is 
no instance in the classics of the active use of zpoéyopuat 
But the interchange of the middle and active voices occurs 
occasionally in the New Testament. See Winer, p. 255. 
ov mdvtws| a decided negative: “not at all.” apoytiacdpeda] 
St. Paul has established the fact of sin, in reference to the 
Gentiles, in i. 18 sq.; and in reference to the Jews, in ii. 1 
sq. mavrds| implies that there is not a single exception: 


68 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


10 \ , od > ” , IDA c 11 > 
Kadas yéypartat OTe ovK Eotw Sixatos ovo eis, ' ovK 


” c / b ” c [al \ s 12 {y 
€oTlW 0 cUViwY, OvK éoTW O extnT@v Tov Jeov* “ TavTES 


“no not one,” as the next verse explains it. i¢’ dyapriav] is 
stronger than dywoprwAdus; they are under sin as a burden of 
guilt and penalty. 


Ver. 10. The apostle now proceeds (verses 10-18), to 
prove his assertion that the Jews are hearers and not doers 
of the law, by quotations from the Old Testament. This is 
an additional and conclusive proof for the Jew, who con- 
ceded the divine authority of the Old Testament. orc] is 
recitative. This quotation is taken from Ps. xiv. 1.  dicacos] 
signifies perfect and complete conformity to law: the zoujris 
vopov of il. 13, or 6 épya€opeyos of iv. 4. ovd€ eis] denotes that 
there are no exceptions. Compare John i. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 5; 
Plato’s Symposium, 214. d. 


Ver. 11 is quoted from Ps. xiv. 2. St. Paul changes the 
original interrogative form into the negative. The article 
6], accompanying the two participles, marks the species or 
class. ovviwy] describes righteousness upon the side of the 
understanding. It is the ‘spiritual discernment” men- 
tioned in 1 Cor. ii. 14, and the “knowledge” spoken of in 
_John viii. 19; xvii. 3; Jer. ix. 24; Prov. ix. 10; Ps exix, 345 
et passim. ex€ytav]| describes righteousness in the same ref- 
erence. It is inquiry and search in order to knowledge. 
Compare 1 Pet.i.10; Acts xv.17; Heb. xi. 6. At the same 
time, this word hints at the other side of righteousness: 
namely, its relation to the will and affections. The reason 
why men do not inquire and search after God is, because 
they do not incline towards, or desire Him. 


Ver. 12. Quoted from Ps. xiv. 3. e&«kAwav] this word 
describes righteousness with reference to the will: “all have 


CHAPTER III. 13, 14. 69 


eFexduvav, dua nype@dInoay* ov« Extw oO ToLav xXpnoTd- 
THTA, OVK EaTW Ews évds. “ Tapos avewypévos 0 Aapuyé 
QUTOY, Tals YAwWTCals avTaV édodLOdGaY, ios GoTIOwY LTO 
Ta xXethn avTav. *“ @Y TO oTOpa a’TaY apas Kal TLKplas 


inclined away” from the ruie or law of righteousness. In 
Aristotle (Politics), éxxAwetv cis dAvyapxtav denotes an inclina- 
tion towards oligarchy, and away from democracy. Sin, in 
its first and deepest form, is the inclination or disposition of 
the will, and hence the apostle mentions it first in order. 
dpa| “in one body or mass.” xpeInoay| the uselessness 
and worthlessness of the sinner in relation to all good objects 
is apparent. He is an ‘unprofitable (dypetos) servant,” Mat. 
xxv. 30. wowv| sin in the form of actions, springing from 
the inclination, is next mentioned. éws évds] like odd€ eis, in 
verse 10, is sweeping, excluding any exception. The stand- 
ard of judgment is sinless perfection. No man does good 
spiritually, perfectly, and without a single slip or failure 
from first to last. 


Ver. 13. Quoted from Ps. v. 10 and Ps. cxl. 3, in the 
Septuagint version. Adpvyé] their words uttered through 
the larynx (not throat) are like the odor of a tomb. Com- 
pare the “rotten communication out of the mouth,” of Eph. 
iy. 29. This description is applicable to written as well as 
spoken words. Little is known of Jewish literature, other 
than the Old Testament Scriptures; but some portions of 
Greek and Roman literature stink like a newly-opened grave. 
€okwtcay| (for edodwiv, Winer, 77) false words naturally 
accompany licentious words. The imperfect tense denotes 
habitual action. ids doridwv| is explanatory of édoAvotear. 


Vur. 14. Quoted from Ps. x. 7: freely from the Septua- 
gint. The character is still described from the language 
uttered: the libidinous and false words end in bitter curses, 


70 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS, 


Is 15 2 a e ‘Ss b la) ’ , e 16 A 
ryéjeel ofels o modes avTav éxyéat aipa, “ cbvTpyLpa 
\ a ¢€ fal rn c 5 
Kal Tadarrwpla év Tais odols a’Tav, " Kal odov elpijyns ovK 
” 3 ’ y ! a , an n 
éyvocav. “ oun éatw boos Jeod arévavte TOV OpSahpav 


avtov. ™ oldapmev O€ OTL Goa O VOMOS Aé€yEL TOLS EV TO VO 
: 1D Hos eyes Tois EV TO VOMO 


muxpias| denotes intense hatred. Compare Eph. iv. 31; Acts 
vil. 23; James iii. 14. 


Verses 15-17 are a condensation of Isa. lix. 7, 8, in the 
Septuagint version. €éxyéou aiva] murder swiftly follows the 
cursing. ovv7pyzpa| an utter destruction which bruises and 
grinds down to the very substance and fibre, is the result of 
such murderous hatred. dots] the word is employed literal- 
ly, here: ‘wherever they go.” 6d0v] the word is employed 
figuratively, here: ‘way ” in the sense of “method.” They 
do not understand the mode of diffusing the blessings of 
peace. Compare Acts xix. 9, 23. 


Ver. 18. Quoted exactly from the Septuagint rendering 
of Ps. xxxvi. 1, excepting the substitution of atray for atrod. 
oBos| “reverential fear.” dzévayti 6fIadpav| the eye is not 
directed towards God as the object of holy awe. The lack 
of this feeling accounts for the sins that have been men- 
tioned. This text of scripture constitutes the preface to the 
judicial sentence to capital punishment. In this description 
of the Jewish character, original sin is mentioned in verses 
10-12 (to 7xpewInoav), and in verse 18; and actual transgres- 
sion in verses 12-17. Melanchthon speaks of it as a delinea- 
tion in qua magna est verborum atrocitas. 


Ver. 19. The apostle now sums up, and draws a conclu- 
sion from these Old Testament quotations: namely, that all 
men are sinful and guilty, and consequently that no man ean 
be justified in the ordinary mode of justification, that is, by 
personal obedience. oidapev] Not the Jews particularly; 


CHAPTER III. 20. TL 


A WA a , A \ e f , A c 
Narel, va wav otoma dpayh Kal vTrodsKos yevnTaL Tas Oo 
Koopos TH Jew. * Sidte €E Epyav vouou ov Sixatwdjoerar 

& ‘ a 


“everybody knows.” Compare ii. 2. dé] is transitive: 
“now.” 6 vouos| the written law, primarily, because St. 
Paul has been speaking, last, of the Jew; yet not the writ- 
ten law exclusively, because the Gentiles are included in wav 
oropa and was 6 Kéopos. The written law contains the un- 
written, by implication, and hence may be put for all law, or 


law generally. A€ye] to say, merely. Aadet] to say in the 


way of description. The first refers only to the matter 
(Adyor); the last to the application and enforcement of the 
matter. Compare John viii. 43; Mark i. 34. Wa] is telic, 
denoting a purpose of God, and not a chance event. av] is 
emphatic, and exclusive of exceptions. payy] complete and 
entire silence under the accusation of the law, is meant. The 
aceused is dvaroAoyyrtos, ii. 1. trdduKo3| “liable to punish- 
ment,” or “guilty.” mas 6 kdcpos| the universality of sin is 
here taught. This passage throws light upon the true inter- 
pretation of ii. 14, 15; i. 26, 27. Compare Gal. iii. 10. In 
the Apocryphal book entitled the “ Prayer of Manasses,” 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are described as sinless: ‘‘ Thou, 
therefore, O Lord, that art the God of the just, hast not ap- 
pointed repentance to the just, as to Abraham, and Isaac, 
and Jacob, which have not sinned against thee; but thou 
hast appointed repentance unto me that am a sinner.” The 
Council of Trent rejected this book from the Apocrypha. 


Ver. 20. div] introduces the reason for the assertion in 
the preceding verse, that every man must be silent when 
accused by the law, and must stand guilty before it. The 
reason is, that no man’s obedience of-the law is adequate to 
justify him. épywv vouov] is a frequent phrase with St. Paul. 
Compare iii. 28; iv. 2, 6; ix. 11, 32; xi. 6; Gal. ii. 16; iii. 2, 


72 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


A \ ews > a \ \ r ae 2 
mica capé évwaTtiov avTod' Oia yap vomoUv emiyvwots 
apuptias. 


5,10; Eph. ii. 9. The vouos here is the same as in the pre- 
ceding verse, namely, the written law primarily, yet as inclu- 
sive of the unwritten. The decalogue has ‘in it all the law 
of conscience, and may, therefore, stand for law generally. 
That voxos has this comprehensive signification is proved by 
the fact, that ‘‘the knowledge of sin” is produced by it. 
This is a universal consciousness, caused sometimes by the 
written, and sometimes by the unwritten law. Two explana- 
tions have been given of epya vopov: 1. Works prescribed by 
the law: i. e. sinless obedience (Calvin, Beza, De Wette, 
Fritzsche, Meyer, Hodge); 2. Works produced by the law: 
i.e. human morality (Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Usteri, 
Neander, Olshausen, Philippi)... The choice between the two 
explanations depends upon whether the phrase is employed 
by St. Paul in a good, or a bad sense: whether it denotes an 
obedience that is spiritual and perfect, and which if per- 
formed would justify (according to ii. 13, 25; iv. 4); or 
whether it denotes an obedience that is heartless and for- 
mal, and which if performed would not justify (according to 
Gal. iii. 10). The objection to the second view is, that the 
“works of the law,” in this sense, would be defective and 
sinful works, and therefore would not naturally take their 
denomination from the “law,” which is “holy, and just, and 
good,” vii. 12. The “work,” in this case, is the product of 
the fallen will unmoved by the Holy Spirit, and is not per- 
formed from love, but from fear or some other selfish motive. 
It is unspiritual and insincere work: the “dead work ” al- 
luded to in Heb. vi. 1; ix. 14. But such a “work” as this 
is forbidden, rather than enjoined, by that law which requires 
love in all obedience, Deut. vi. 5; Mat. xxii. 37, 38. It is 
unlawful, rather than lawful, and should not, consequently, 


CHAPTER III. 20. 3 


be associated with the Jaw in any manner. To say that “no 
flesh shall be justified ” by such a work as this, would be a 
truism rather than a truth. The first explanation, therefore, 
is preferable. The “works of the law” are those which are 
commanded by the law of God. This law is “spiritual,” vil. 
14. It requires a “ work,” or obedience, that is actuated by 
the Holy Spirit, issues from the inmost depths of the human 
spirit, is completely conformed to the law which is spiritual, 
and is performed without intermission from first to last. The 
“works of the law,” then, are sinless obedience, and not hu- 
man morality. It must furthermore be noticed, that, accord- 
ing to this explanation, the spiritual but imperfect obedience 
of the regenerate man would not come up to the meaning of 
Ta épya vouov. The obedience of faith is very different from 
human morality, and far nearer to what the law requires. 
But it is not an absolutely perfect obedience of the law, 
and, therefore, upon the principle that ‘ whosoever shall 
keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point is guilty of 
all” (James ii. 10), the believer can no more be justified by 
his “works,” or obedience, than the moralist can be by his. 
vA Both are failures, when tested by the ideal of the law. The 
law calls nothing obedience, but perfect obedience. 0d] 
qualifies ducawInoera: if it were intended to qualify maca, a 
different collocation would have been employed. Compare 
1 Cor. xv. 39; Mat. vil. 21. dixawdInocerar] to pronounce, or 
declare, just: as in ii. 13; iii. 4, 24, 26, 28; iv. 2, 5; v. 9; 
vi. 7, et alia. For the Classical, Septuagint, and New Testa- 
ment use of duxowodv, see the exhaustive discussion of Wiese- 
ler, in his comment on Gal. ii. 16; the substance of which is 
given by Schaff, in Lange on Rom. iii. 20. This impossibili- 
ty of man’s justification by the “works of the law” is not 
absolute and intrinsic, but only relative. The apostle has 
distinctly affirmed, that “the doers of the law shall be justi- 
fied,” ii. 13. If there actually were sinless obedience, in the 


74 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


case of man, it would justify him. The impossibility arises 
from the fact, that no such “ work” as is prescribed by the 
law is performed by man. The law, instead of having been 
perfectly and completely obeyed, has been disobeyed by the 
Gentile, in the manner described in i. 18-382; by the Jew, in 
the manner described in ii. 1-10, 17-29; and by both Jew 
and Gentile, in the manner described in ili. 10-19. yap] as- 
signs the reason why no man shall be justified by the “‘ works 
of the law,” or perfect obedience; namely, because he has 
not rendered such obedience. When the test of the law, 
either written or unwritten, is applied, sin is disclosed, in- 
stead of sinless perfection. éziyvwo.s| the law detects sin, 
but does not remove it; as the Levitical sin-offering reminded 
of guilt, but did not take it away, Heb. x.3. This revelatory 
work and office of the law is fully described in vii. 7-12. 
See comment in loco. 


§ 2. The nature of gratuitous justification. Rom. ili. 21- 
lv. 25. 

St. Paul now begins the second division of the Epistle, 
which discusses the nature of gratuitous justification. 
Verses 21-30 contain an account of the extraordinary right- 
eousness that was alluded to in i. 17,—the apostle having, 
from that point in the Epistle up to this, been occupied with 
proving that the common and ordinary righteousness known 
to human ethics, namely, personal and exact conformity to 
the law and obedience of it, is out of the question, for both 
Jew and Gentile. 


Ver. 21. vuvi] 1. an adverb of time: nostris temporibus. 
Compare iii. 26; Gal. iv. 4; 2. an adverb of relation: “in 
this state of things.” The latter is preferable, because the 
writer is engaged in a process of reasoning and not in a his- 
torical narrative. xwpis| “apart,” or separate from: entire 


CHAPTER II. 21. (> 


* Nuvi 5é yopis vowov Sixavoctvn Jeod repavépwrat, 
Paptupoupévn v7rd Tod vopouv Kal TaV TpopnTOr, ” StKato- 


separation is intended. voyov] is anarthrous, to denote law 
generally, either written or unwritten. The law is here put 
for the “works of the law,” or obedience. The clause Xwpis 
vouov qualifies wepavépwrat, God, in revealing and manifest- 
ing this peculiar kind of righteousness, makes no use of 
man’s work of obedience. He employs only the work of 
Christ. dixavocvvn Jeod|] for the meaning of this phrase, see 
comment oni. 17%. medavépwrar}] is equivalent to dzoxadvmte- 
vatini. 17%. Both terms imply a supernatural disclosure of 
something otherwise unknown. The perfect tense is here 
the present of a completed action: this righteousness has 
been objectively revealed, and is still revealed subjectively 
to faith. paprypovuévy id, etc.| this is said, to show that 
this peculiar species of righteousness, though “ without the 
law,” is nevertheless not antinomian. There is no intrinsic 
hostility between this “ righteousness of God,” and the law 
of God. Law and justice are completely maintained in this 
method of gratuitous justification. Compare iv. 31.  vopov] 
in connection with zpodytév denotes the Old Testament 
scriptures. Compare Mat. v. 17; vii. 12. In this use, it is 
more comprehensive than in either of the instances of its use 
in verse 20; because it includes the gracious as well as the 
legal elements of the Old Economy. The Old Testament 
reveals both law and gospel, justice and mercy. See John 
v. 39; Acts x. 43; xxviii. 23; Luke xxiv. 27. The testimony 
which the “law and the prophets” bear to the dicavoovvy Jeod 
is contained in the Messianic matter of the Old Testament, 
some of which St. Paul soon proceeds to cite. See iv. 3-10. 
These passages prove that a righteousness that does not con- 
sist of perfect personal obedience, is known to the Old Testa- 
ment. See comment on x. 6-10. 


76 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


a 1 
avvn &€ Jeod Sia Tictews “Incod Xpiotod, eis wdvtas Tous 
2 \ 4 
TicTevovTas. ov ydp éoTw SiacToAH* * TavTEs yap Huap- 


Ver. 22. 8] is adversative: not the common ethical right- 
eousness, “but a righteousness,” etc. Compare Phil. ii. 8; 
Javérov 8: no ordinary death “but a death,” ete. dixovoovvy 
Jeod] sc. épxduevn. See comment on i. 17. da] is instru- 
mental. Faith is the act upon the part of man by means of 
which this righteousness comes upon him, Xpwtod| the 
genitive of the object, Mark xi. 22; Acts iti. 16; Gal. 11. 16; 
XX. 3, 22; Eph. iii. 12; Phil. iii. 9; James ii. 1. és avras] 
without the addition of «al éxt révras, is supported by SABC 
Copt., Aithiop., Lachm., Tisch. The additional clause is sup- 
ported by DEF Peshito, Vulg., Recept. When retained, the 
thought is, that this righteousness not merely comes up to 
(cis) the person, but overflows and covers (ézt) him. zurev- 
ovras|] sc. T@ Xpior@. The radical notion contained in this 
important and frequent word is that of confiding trust (fidu- 
cia). yap] introduces the reason why this righteousness comes 
upon “all who believe.” d:acroAy] there is no difference be- 
tween Jew and Gentile, in respect both to sin and to faith. 
Both alike are sinners, and both alike are invited to believe 
in Christ. 


Ver. 23. yap] introduces the reason why there is no dif- 
ference between Jew and Gentile. amavres jpaprov| “all 
sinned:” the aoristic meaning is to be retained. The apos- 
tle has in his mind a particular historical event: the same, 
namely, with that alluded to in wavres juaprov of v. 12, the 
sinin Adam. It is the one original sin of apostasy, more 
than any particular transgressions that flow from it, that 
puts Jew and Gentile upon the same footing, so that there 
is no “difference” between them. The fall in Adam, like” 
the recovery in Christ, is a central and organizing idea in 


CHAPTER IIL. 24, i 


\ e A a / lal lal 24 , 
Tov Kal voTepovvTar THs SdEns tov Jeod, ™ dSiKacovpevot 
Swpeav TH avTodD xapite dud Tis amohvTpwTEws Tis EV 


the Epistle to the Romans, and therefore it is alluded to 
here under the historical tense, and without any further de- 
scription, as a well-known truth and fact. With this pri- 
mary and principal reference to the Adamic transgression, 
have also been connected, the corruption of nature, and ac- 
tual transgressions, as is done by Bengel (in loco): ‘‘ Both 
the original act of sin in paradise, is denoted, and the sinful 
disposition, as also the acts of transgression flowing from it.” 
Others select a single particular: corruption of nature (Luther 
and Calvin); individual transgressions (Tholuck, Meyer, Phi- 
lippi). torepotvrar| with the genitive, signifies: ‘to be desti- 
tute of:” compare Luke xxii. 35; Mat. xix. 20. The present 
tense denotes the present and continuing consequence of that 
act in the past designated by juaprov. ddéns] is the approba- 
tion or praise which God bestows, John y. 44; xii. 43; Rom. 
ii: 29 (Grotius, De Wette, Fritzsche, Meyer, Hodge). Other 
explanations: /self-approbation before, God (Luther, Rosen- 
miiller) the glory of heaven (Beza)# the image of God (Ols- 
hausen); ‘the honor of God (Eng. Ver.). 


Vor, 24. dicaroduevor] for the signification, see comment on 
i. 13; iii.4. The participle, here, is not equivalent to a finite 
verb stating another fact additional to those specified by the 
preceding verbs, but mentions a proof of these facts: “they 
sinned and were destitute of the divine approbation, because, 
or since, they are justified,” etc. The fact that they are jus- 
tified ‘in this extraordinary way proves that they must have 
sinned; otherwise they would have been justified in the or- 
dinary ethical way. For this use of the participle, compare 
pevomeiy.. lo; Col, i..3; Heb. vi. 6, 8; 2 Pet. ii. 1. Winer, 
p-. 352. dwpedv| gratis (the contracted form of gratiis, imply- 


"8 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


ing that nothing but thanks is expected for the favor done), 
Compare John xv. 25; Mat. x. 8; 2 Thess. iii. 8; Rom. v. 17; 
Eph. ii. 3. The justification is dwpedv, in respect to the be- 
liever. He pays nothing for it: it is “without money and 
without price,” Isa. lv. 1. In reference to Christ, however, 
it is not dwpeav. He purchases it at a costly price, which he 
pays, 1 Cor. vi. 20; Mat. xx. 28; 1 Pet. i.18, 19. 9] is 
separated from its noun by atrov, in order to put emphasis 
upon the fact that it is God’s grace that accomplishes the 
object spoken of, without man’s co-operation. xdprre] desig- 
nates the feeling in God that inclines him to show favor to 
the guilty. dia 77s, etce.] denotes the medium or instrument 
through which the grace is exerted. This implies that an in- 
strument is requisite, so that without it there could be no 
manifestation of grace. doAvtpicews] deliverance, or re- 
lease, from claims, by the payment of a price (Avzpoy). In 
classical usage, the word denotes the release of prisoners and 
slaves by the payment of money. In Biblical usage, it de- 
notes the release of sinners from the claims of divine justice, 
by the vicarious sufferings of Christ. These are a price paid 
for the release. Compare 1 Cor. vi. 20; vii. 23; Gal. iii. 13; 
Acts xx. 28; Titus ii. 14; Mat. xx. 285 Hiphie7; i amen 
6; 1 Pet. i.18. Inasmuch as these passages, as well as the 

explanation given in verse 25 of the “ redemption,” connect 
' the deliverance or release with the blood, or atonement, of 
Christ, the reference in aréAvtpwors must be more to the guilt 
of sin than to its corruption; or more to justification than to 
sanctification. Though, of course, the latter is comprised in 
the redemption considered as a whole. “Every mode of 
explanation which refers redemption and the forgiveness of 
sins, not to a real atonement through the death of Christ, 
but subjectively to the dying and reviving with him guaran- 
teed and produced by that death (Schleiermacher, Nitzsch, 
Hofmann, and others), is opposed to the New Testament,— 


CHAPTER III. 25. 79 
Xpicta “Inood, * dv mpoéIeTo 6 eds iNaoTHpLov dia THs 
TigTEWS EV TH AVTOD aiwati, eis EvdetEW THs SiKatocvvns 
avTod, Sia THY TapEeciv TOV TpoyeyovoT@Y dpapTHUdTaV 
a mixing-up of justification and sanctification.” Meyer in 
loco. év Xpicr@| in and by his person and work. The par- 


ticular manner is described in verse 2d. 


Ver. 25. mpoétero] “publicly set forth:” Plato (Phzedo, 
115) employs the word to describe the laying out of the 
corpse of Socrates; Herodotus, to denote the display of gold 
and silver utensils (iii. 148). This setting forth is in and by 
the crucifixion pre-eminently, yet.not exclusively. The 
entire humiliation and suffering of the God-man, from the 
instant of the miraculous conception to the rereAéorae (John 
xix. 30), is included. Perhaps the force of the middle voice 
should be insisted upon: “ God set forth for himself.” The 
atonement of Christ is a se/f-satisfaction for the triune God. 
lt meets the requirements of that divine nature which is 
equally in each person. ‘God hath reconciled us to himself 
(eauTa),” 2 Cor. v. 18, 19; Coloss. i. 20. In the work of 
vicarious atonement, the Godhead is both subject and 
object, active and passive. God holds the claims, and God 
satisfies the claims; he is displeased, and he propitiates the 
displeasure; he demands the atonement, and he provides the 
atonement. It should be noticed that zpoédero does not sig- 
nify the making of the mai t This idea is expressed by , 
édwxev, John ili. 16; wapédwxev, Eph.-v. 2; zpoodépew, Heb. v. 
1, 3. Chrysostom, who is followed by Fritzsche and Eng. 
Ver. (margin), takes zpoédero in the sense of purpose, or 
decree. This interpretation is favored by the fact that in| 
the only other instances in which the word is used (Rom, i.| 
13; Eph. i. 9), it has this signification; and, moreover, it 
agrees well with St. Paul’s general system. But the fact 


80 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


that in the context a “ manifestation” is spoken of as being 
accomplished by the act defined by zpoédero, is conclusive 
for the explanation most generally adopted. 6 Jeos] God. 
the Father. The trinitarian persons are objective to each 
other. One sends another (John vy. 37; x. 36; xvi. 7; xiv. 
26); and one addresses another (John xvii. 5; Heb. 1. 8). 
Each has his official work. Yet, since the whole essence is 
in each person (for a trinitarian person is not a fraction of 
the essence), this official work cannot be attributed to the 
particular person in an exclusive sense. The unity and iden- 
tity of essence, after all, necessitates that each person have a 
common participation and honor in the official work of the 
others. Hence, the official work of one is occasionally at- 
tributed to another: e. g. the Son creates, Coloss. i. 16; the 
Father sanctifies, John xvii..17. taoryptov}| Explanations: 
1. supply éri9ena, so that it is the HxBS (which the ‘Sept. 
translates by ttaorypiov, Ex. xxv. 17), the lid of the ark of 
the covenant, upon which the blood was sprinkled: the ‘ pro- 
pitiatory ” (Aug., Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, 
Calvin, Grotius, Olsh., Tholuck, Philippi, Lange); 2. supply 
Siva: a “propitiatory sacrifice” (De Wette, Fritzsche, 
Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, Hodge); 3. iAaorypiov is taken 
as a noun (a frequent use in later Greek writers), so that it 
is equivalent to iAacpds, 1 John iv. 10: the “ propitiation” 
(Vulg., Eng. Ver., Hilary, Usteri, Riickert). Hither the 
second or third explanation is preferable to the first, because 
it agrees better with zpoédero ; and because this would be the 
only instance in which Christ is compared to the sprinkled 
lid of the ark of the covenant: a comparison, which upon 
the face of it seems incongruous. 6:4 rictews €v TH adrod 
aiyart] Explanations: 1. a comma is to be placed after 
miotews, So that mpoéJero will have two adjuncts: God sets 
forth Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice, first, by means of 
(8) the believer’s faith in this sacrifice, and, secondly, by 


CHAPTER III. 25. 81 


means of (ev) the blood of Christ: by the believer’s faith, and 
in Christ’s blood (De Wette); 2. the same punctuation, but 
so that mpoéJero shall have but one adjunct: the clause dua 
miotews qualifying tAaorypiov. God sets forth Christ as a pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice (effective through faith), by means of (év) 
the blood of Christ (Meyer); 3. the whole clause is an ad- 
junct of zpoéJero: God sets forth Christ as a propitiatory 
sacrifice, by means of (dua) the believer’s faith in this sacri- 
fice, and this faith rests upon (év) the blood, or death, of the 
sacrifice (Luther, Calvin, Beza, Olshausen, Tholuck, Hodge). 
This is the most natural interpretation. The objection that 
the preposition should have been «is instead of ev, if the 
writer had intended to connect ziorews with aiuar, has no 
force in view of such texts as John vili. 31; Acts v. 14; xviii. 
8; 1 Tim. iii. 13; 2 Tim. i. 13; iii. 15. The thought of the 
writer is, that the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ is com- 
pletely set forth and exhibited, only when it is effectually 
applied by the Holy Spirit, and appropriated by faith. The 
full virtue of the atonement is not understood except by a 
believer. The believer’s faith, of course, adds nothing to the 
piacular value of Christ’s sacrifice, which is infinite and a 
fixed quantity, but it helps to reveal its real nature, and to 
explain the mystery to men and angels (1 Pet. i. 12). eis] is 
telic, denoting the design of God in the act designated by 
mpoedeto. evoeetv] the purpose of the action in zpoéJero is a 
disclosure of something otherwise unmanifested. It is 
anarthrous, to distinguish it from the other and more im- 
portant e&deéis mentioned in verse 26.  dicaroovvys] judicial 
or punitive righteousness (De Wette, Meyer, Tholuck, Phi- 
lippi, Wordsworth, Alford, Hodge). The context settles it. 
It is a righteousness that is manifested in and through the 
iAacrnpiov, or piacular offering. But this is correlated to 
retributive justice. 6a] “on account of.” The implication 
is that the adpeots duaptypdrwv, in itself considered, is incon- 


82 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


sistent with the dcaoovvn, and requires to be explained and 
set right. mdpeow| ‘ pretermission,” (Beza, Cocceius, Bengel, 
Hammond, Meyer, Trench, Synonyms, 33, Philippi), not “ re- 
mission.” ‘Sins temporarily passed by may be subsequent- 
ly punished (compare 2 Sam. xvi. 10-12; xi. 21-23, with 
1 Kings ii. 8, 9, 44-46), but not sins absolutely forgiven.” 
Philippi in loco. The marginal rendering of the Eng. Ver. 
is correct: “passing over.” The act of God here intended 
is not that of forgiveness, or remission proper. ‘This is de- 
noted by ddeots: the term wdpeots being found in the New 
Testament only in this passage. This divine act of “ passing 
over,” or temporarily omitting to punish, is described as 
« overlooking” (imepidwv, “winking at,” Eng. Ver.), Acts 
xvii. 30; ‘suffering to walk in their own ways,” Acts xiv. 
16; ‘‘forbearance,” and “ long-suffering,” Rom. ii. 4; 1x. 22. 
Compare Ps. Ixxxi. 12; cxlvii. 20. The sin, in these in- 
stances, is not pardoned. It still stands charged against the 
sinner, but there is a delay of punishment. This delay, in 
itself considered, is an irregular act, according to the princi- 
ple of retributive justice which demands instant and exact 
infliction of penalty; and hence it requires to be legitimated 
by some method. On account of (64) this irregularity, and 
conflict with justice, it was necessary that there should be a 
vindication of this attribute of God by a propitiatory sacri- 
fice. All temporary delay of penalty, as well as all full re- 
mission of penalty, in the history of mankind, occurs through 
the ttaorypiov tov Jeov. The atonement of Christ, says Tho- 
luck, is the divine theodicy for the past history of the world, 
in which there is so much of forbearance and delay to pun- 
ish. It is needless to remark, that this pretermission of sin, 
as distinguished from its remission, is only a secondary end 
of Christ’s atonement. It is a benefit which the lost, as well 
as the redeemed, receive from Christ. The great and primary 
design of Christ’s death is the actual pardon of sin which is 


CHAPTER III. 26. 83 


26 2 a> A an a \ N ” a , 

€v TH avoYn TOU Jeod, mpos THY evderELY THs SiKavocbvns 
auTov €v T@ ViV KaLpe, Eis TO Elvat avTOV Sikatoy Kal StKat- 
ouvta Tov é« Tictews Incod. 


designated by the phrase eis dfecw duaptidv. mpoyeyovoruv | 
“previously or already committed.” It is antithetic to ro 
vov Kaipo, and denotes the sin of man before the Advent, 
like “the times of ignorance,” Acts xvii. 30; and the “ times 
past,” Acts xiv. 16. This ante-Christian sin, though not for- 
given, was treated with indulgence. The passage also may 
have an individual application. At any point of time, the 
past sins of a man though not pardoned, have been treated 
with forbearance upon the ground of the atonement. The 
Romanist explanation of wdpeois, according to which it is a 
quasi-pardon granted to Old Testament saints, to be followed 
by a full remission (decors) after Christ’s “descent into hell” 
for their deliverance, is refuted by the fact that the mdpeous 
relates to all men alike who lived before the advent. 


Ver. 26. dvoyj| is connected with wapecw, and signifies 
indulgence, or forbearance to punish, and must not be con- 
founded with grace (xdépis). This latter, alone, is the ground 
of the full and real remission of sin. dvoyy agrees with the 
sentimental, as distinguished from the ethical idea of God. 
Indulgence is not the same as grace or mercy. Mercy has a 
moral basis. It is willing, if need be, to suffer self-sacrifice 
for its object. It is good ethics. Indulgence, on the con- 
trary, recoils from all suffering, and is easy good-nature. It 
is bad ethics, and requires to be set right by some method 
which satisfies that principle of justice which indulgence has 
interfered with. This explanation and legitimation of the 
irregularity of “ overlooking” sin, and “ suffering all nations 
to walk in their own ways,” St. Paul finds in the sacrifice of 
Christ who in this way ‘‘ tasted death for every man.” And 


84 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


the implication is, that apart from this sacrifice, the justice 
of God would have no more allowed évoxy, and delay of pen- 
alty, in the instance of mankind, than it did in that of the 
fallen angels. pos] ‘ with a view to;” ‘‘for the sake of.” 
It denotes an aim or purpose with more particularity than 
does eis, See Vigerusin voce. tyv evdegw] the article (sup- 
ported by SABCD, Lachm., Tisch.) is associated with the 
noun, in this instance, to indicate that this “ manifestation ” 
is the great and principal one. It is not that incidental 
évoetéus, or display of retributive righteousness, spoken of in 
verse 25, which merely explains the delay to inflict the pen- 
alty of sin, but that which relates to and explains its com- 
plete and absolute non-infliction, The apostle now has in 
view the pardon and justification of believers, and not the 
mere forbearance of God towards unbelievers. dixatoovvys | 
punitive justice, as in verse 25. 76 vov xaipo| is antithetic to 
mpoyeyovorwy: the Christian, in distinction from the ante- 
Christian era. This particular manifestation of retributive 
justice in vicarious atonement does not actually occur until 
the advent and crucifixion of Christ. is 76 evar] is epexe- 
getical of ryv &deéwv alone, and not of évdegéw anarthrous in 
verse 25. This latter &deéis is associated with the justifica- 
tion of the believer; the other only with the delay of punish- 
ment in the instance of the unbeliever. Christ is set forth 
a propitiatory sacrifice, principally for the sake of disclosing 
how God can be strictly just, and at the same time justify 
the unjust. dékatov kal ducavotvra] cai has an adversative force: 
‘and yet:” implying that there is a natural incompatibility 
between the two things. To pronounce the ungodly to be 
just (iv. 5), is an unjust verdict, taken by itself without ex- 
planation, and without any ground being laid for it. St. 
Paul implies that if God had justified the ungodly without 
the tAaorypiov, he would not have been dikaos., That a judge 
can be just, and at the same time not inflict punishment 


CHAPTER TIf. 2%. $5 


a lo e 
* [lod ovv 4 Kavynow; é&exreicIn. Sid Toiou vd- 
. lal ” A > / 1X. \ 8 \ ie / 28 
fou; Tav épywv; ovyi, GAA dia vomov TicTews. *° do- 


where it is due, is in itself self-contradictory. This contra- 
diction is removed by vicarious atonement, or the infliction 
of penalty upon a substitute. ov é« rictews]. Compare 6x é& 
épiteias, ii. 8. The preposition implies that faith is the prin- 
ciple owt of which the whole life and conduct issues. 


Ver. 27 contains an inference from the statements in 
verses 21-26. od] is scornful in its tone. Compare 1 Cor. 
i. 20. The reply is: “It is nowhere.” ovr] is inferential in 
its force, and looks back to the reasoning in verses 21-26. 
Kavxnois| is not used in its bad sense of “ boasting” (Eng. 
Ver.), but its good sense, as in iv. 2; xv. 17; 2 Cor. i. 12. 
It signifies, here, that proper self-approbation which rests 
upon perfect obedience. Had man completely fulfilled the 
law of God, he would have been justified upon this ground, 
and might have gloried and rejoiced in the fact that he had 
been an obedient subject of the divine government. His 
consciousness, in this case, would have been like that of the 
holy angels, who do not ‘boast ” of their virtue, yet know 
that they have kept the commandment. éfexAcioIn] says 
Theodoret, otk ére xwpav execs it has no wod at all. vopov] 
supply égexAetoIn. The term vomos, here, has the secondary 
meaning of a rule of procedure, or of judgment, in a particu- 
lar case. The apostle asks, upon what “ principle” is Kavyy- 
ows excluded. épywyv] is the same as épywy vopmov in ili. 20. 
The whole clause would be, da vouov tév épywv vopov. in 
which the term vouos would be employed in two significa- 
tions. The “works of the law” are sinless obedience, 
which, of course, if rendered, would not (odx/) shut out self- 
approbation and the consciousness of personal rectitude. 
miotews| supply év 7a Xpiorod aiwari, as in iil, 25. Faith is 


86 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


yiopeda yap StixavotoIa: Tictes dvIpwrov ywpis Epyov 


vopov. ~~ % “Lovéaiwy o Seos povwv; ovyl Kai édvenv ; 


confidence in another’s merit, and of course excludes con- 
fidence in personal merit. 


VER. 28. Aoyfoueda] “We are certain; it is our fixed 
opinion.” Compare ii. 3; vill. 18; xiv. 14; 2 Cor amas 
St. Paul, after this course of reasoning, regards the case as 
made out, and feels warranted in expressing his confidence 
in the correctness of his position respecting gratuitous justi- 
fication. yap] is supported by RADE Vulg., Copt., Griesh., 
Lach., Tisch. ovv is the reading in BCL Peshito, Receptus. 
The weight of authority is in favor of yap. St. Paul assigns 
this confident certainty of the truth of gratuitous justifica- 
tion as a reason (yép) why kavxnous is excluded, and not as 
an inference (ovv) from the previous investigation.  duKac- 
otaJa] ‘declared to be just,” as in itl, 20, more] is the 
instrumental dative; the clause évy r@ Xpucrod aipare is to be 
supplied from ii, 25. Faith justifies in the same sense that 
eating nourishes. It is not the act of mastication, but the 
food, that sustains life; and it is not the act of believing, 
but Christ’s death, which delivers fron the condemnation of 
the law. ‘In justification, man, indeed, does something; but 
the act of taking, viewed as an act, does not justify, but 
that which is taken or laid hold of,” Bengel on Rom. v. 17. 
This is taught in the common statement, that the atonement 
of Christ is the meritorious or procuring cause of justifica- 
tion, while faith is only the instrumental cause. Viewed as 
an act merely, and apart from its relation to the oblation of 
Christ, there is no more reason why a man should be justi- 
fied by his faith, than by his hope, or by his charity,—as the 
Tridentine doctors assert he is. Charity is said by St. Paul 
to be greater than faith or hope (1 Cor. xiii. 13), But it is 


CHAPTER IIL. 29, 30. 87 


plain, that no act of man, internal or external, however ex- 
cellent, can be a sufficient reason why the punishment of sin 
should be remitted to him. yxwpis] entirely separate and 
apart from: without a single deed; faith only, and alone. 
épywv vonov] good and perfect works such as are prescribed 
by the law. See comment on iii. 20. St. Paul is speaking 
of justification, or the deliverance from penalty, in distinc- 
tion from sanctification, or the production of holiness; and 
asserts that good works contribute nothing towards justifica- 
tion. That a man has performed a good action, is not a 
reason why he should be released from the punishment due 
for having done a bad one. There is nothing of the nature 
of an atonement in sinless obedience, because there is nothing 
of the nature of suffering in it. Obedience is happiness, but 
happiness is not expiatory. Good works do not bleed; and 
without shedding of blood there is no remission of punish- 
ment (Heb. ix. 22). The Romanist attempt to produce jus- 
tification by sanctification, to obtain the pardon of sin upon 
the ground of either internal or external obedience, is not an 
adaptation of means to ends. It is like the attempt to quench 
thirst with bread, instead of water. The true correlate to 
guilt is atoning suffering, and to substitute anything in the 
place of it, however excellent and necessary in other respects 
the substitute may be, must be a failure. 


Ver. 29. 7] “or,” granting that justification is by faith 
alone, and that xavynots is excluded, in the case of the Jeu, 
is it so with the Gentile? 6 Jess] The universality of this 
method of justification is proved by the fact of one God for 
all men, who has but one course of action for all. 


Ver. 30. érep| “since” (RABC Lachm,, Tisch.) is stronger 
than ézetrep (DEL Recept.), and introduces an assertion that 
is indisputable. fs] ‘‘one and the same.” The doctrine of 
the divine unity implies that God is not the deity of the 


88 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS, 


vai Kal éIvav, “elmep els 6 Yeos d5 Sixauwoer trepito- 
pny é€k miaTews Kal axpoBvoTtiay dia THs TicTews. * vd- 


Jews only; in which case there must be another for the Gen- 
tiles. dixawoer| the future, as in ili. 20, denotes a uniform 
rule without exceptions. é« and da] are used as equivalents. 
Compare Gal. iii. 8; Eph. ii. 8. The former preposition pre- 
sents faith more as a principle of action in the person. Com- 
pare é& épiteias, 11. 8; €« weptrouns, iv. 12; e€ dydays, Phil. i. 17. 
Ts tictews| the article signifies that the emphasis must be 
laid upon faith: “ the very same faith.” 


Ver. 31. De Wette and Meyer regard this verse as be- 
longing to chapter iv., and announcing the theme of the 
discussion in this chapter; but it is preferable (with Aug., 
Beza, Calvin, Bengel, Tholick, Lange, Wordsworth, Hodge) 
to consider it as the conclusion of chapter iii. It is a bold 
and confident affirmation, followed up only indirectly by an 
argument in chapter iv., because St. Paul has already (iii. 
21) shown that the doctrine of gratuitous justification is not 
antinomian, by referring to the Old Testament where it is 
taught; and because all that he has said respecting Christ as 
the tAtaorypiov proves that the law as retributive is main- 
tained. véuov] is emphatic by position. It is primarily the 
moral law as stated in the Mosaic decalogue (ill. 28; Acts 
xxl. 28; Gal. iv. 21); yet as this includes the unwritten law, 
by implication, vouos here stands for law universally. Neither 
the decalogue nor the human conscience are “made void” 
by faith in Christ’s atonement. ovv] refers to the foregoing 
statements regarding a righteousness that is without works, 
which upon the face of it looks like a nullification of the 
moral law. xatapyoduev| “to make useless:” a frequent 
word with St. Paul, who often employs it in the sense of 
utterly abolishing, or nullifying. tijs wicrews| the article 


* 


CHAPTER III. 31. 89 


A fol \ , > \ 
pov odv Katapyoomev Sia THs TigTews ; by yEevotto, addrAa 
VOMOV (OTAVOMED. 


directs attention to that peculiar faith spoken of, which is 
“without works.” ji) yévorro]. See comment on ili. 4. ada] 
“on the contrary.” ioravowev] (RABCD Lach., Tisch.) for 
totapev. The reading tordmev is supported by E Receptus. 
It signifies, to make firm what otherwise would be tottering. 
The apostle has already done this in iii. 21, and by what he 
has said respecting the connection between the propitiation 
of Christ and retributive justice. In the following chapter, 
however, he incidentally strengthens the proof, by what is 
said in the Old Testament concerning the justification of 
Abraham, 


CHAPTER IV. 


1 t 5 Shc e r > \ X , 

Ti ovy épotpev evtpynxévar “ABpaaw tov mpomatopa 
(ote \ s Ew \ > \ > ” > , 

Huav Kata odpKa ; * ei yap “ABpaaw €& Epywv edixar@dn, 


Ver. 1. ovv] i. ¢., with reference to this doctrine of gra- 
tuitous justification. The question is one raised by St. Paul 
himself, for the purpose of finding in its answer a proof, ad- 
ditional to that already given in chapter iil., that justifica- 
tion by faith does not conflict with the Old Testament. 
etpyxeva] ‘to acquire,” or “obtain.” Compare Luke i, 30. 
This collocation of eipyxévar is supported by BACDEF Vulg., 
Copt., Aithiop., Lachm., Tisch. The Receptus, with L Peshi- 
to, places it after jyav. B omits it. "ABpaau| The case of 
the head and father of the Jewish nation would be a crucial 
test of the doctrine, so far as the Jew was concerned. xara 
odpxa| is to be construed with etpyxéva (Peshito, De Wette, 
Tholuck, Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, Hodge), and not with 
aporaropa (Origen, Ambrose, Chrys., Calvin, Eng. Ver.). 
This is evident, for the following reasons: 1. odp€ is em- 
ployed by St. Paul to denote human nature: the entire man, 
both soul and body, Rom. i. 3; iii. 20; vi. 19; vii. 5, 185 viii. 
12 et alia. But there is no other mode than this, in which 
Abraham could have been the forefather of the Jews; and 
hence it would not require to be specially mentioned. If it 
be said, that Abraham was the forefather of a Jew with re- 
spect to the body, in distinction from the soul, this would 
make odp€ synonymous with gaya, which is contrary to the 


Pauline use of terms. 2. The phrase xera odpxa is expressly - 


CHAPTER Iv. 2. 91 


explained in verse 2, by é& épywv. The question, then, which 
St. Paul asks is: What merit before God did Abraham ac- 
quire, in the use of his natural human faculties, or, in other 
words, by his own works? The view of Meyer, that oap& 
here is antithetic to mvedua or vous, and that St. Paul asks 
what Abraham obtained in the use of his lower physical, in 
distinction from his higher rational and spiritual nature, is 
incompatible with the Pauline use of capg as comprehending 
the whole man, and is connected with that un-Pauline theory 
of sin which places its seat in the sensuous in distinction 
from the rational nature. Compare Miiller, On Sin, I. 321. 
Urwick’s Translation. 


Ver. 2. yap] implies that the answer to the question is, 
that Abraham acquired no merit at all by this method. é& 
épywv| supply vouov- perfect sinless obedience is meant, as in 
iil. 20, 27, 28, and as the connection with édicawIy involves. 
kavxnya| materies gloriandi, “matter or ground for self-ap- 
probation.” ‘Paul calls that glorying, when we profess to 
have anything of our own to which a reward is supposed to 
be due at God’s tribunal.” Calvin in loco. Like xadvynous in 
ili. 27, it is employed here in a good sense. Compare } Cor. 
ix. 15; Gal. vi. 4; Phil. iii. 3. According to 1 Cor. v. 6, 
there is a true and a false “ glorying.” Had Abraham per- 
fectly kept the moral law, he might have had confidence in 
this obedience as the basis of justification before God. zpos] 
“‘with reference to.” If Abraham were pronounced just 
upon his own merits, then he was not justified dwpedyr (iii. 
24), and consequently his xavxnua, or ground of confidence, 
would not have reference to God’s ttaorypiuov. He would 
glory in, and rest upon personal righteousness, and could 
not glory and trust in free grace, as St. Paul does in v. 2, 
11; 1 Cor. i. 31. His consciousness would be like that of 
an unfallen angel, and not that of a redeemed man. Some 


92, COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Eyer Kavynpa, GAN ov mpos Jeov. * Tt yap 7) ypady hé- 
yer; “Enictevocev 5é ’ABpadp TO Jeo, Kai Ehoyian avT@ 


explain the phrase as meaning that Abraham could not have 
confidence in the presence of God, because God searches the 
heart. But if Abraham had really rendered a perfect obedi- 
ence, the Searcher of hearts would have seen it. 


Ver. 3. yap] introduces the reason for the assertion in od 
mpos Jeov. The Old Testament (ypadi)) asserts that Abraham 
was justified by the imputation of faith for righteousness 
(Gen. xv. 6); this would lead Abraham to glory, not zpos 
éavtov but mpos Jeov: i. e., with respect to God’s grace in 
Christ. Compare v. 11. émiorevoev] Abraham believed the 
divine promise that the “‘Seed of the Woman” (Gen. ili. 15) 
should be born of him. ‘This was faith in the divine Re- 
deemer of man; which was, of course, accompanied with the 
sense of needing a Redeemer; which, of course, excluded 
self-approbation (xavxyors). That Abraham’s faith was an 
act of confiding trust in the divine mercy through a media- 
tor, and the same in kind with that of the Christian believer, 
is proved by the fact, that Christ distinctly affirmed that 


Abraham’s faith terminated on Himself (John viii. 56); and 


that St. Paul denominates Christian believers ‘the children of 
Abraham” (Rom. iv. 11; Gal. iii. 7). dé] is transitive: “now.” 
é\oyicIn| the Hebrew is nzim, “he imputed.” St. Paul 
quotes from the Septuagint. The word signifies to ‘ac- 
count,” or “reckon.” Righteousness may be reckoned to 
man, as Rom. iv. 4 explains, in either of two ways: 1. meri- 
toriously (kata dpeidypa) ; 2. graciously (xara xdpw). The 
imputation may rest upon personal obedience. In this case, 
it is meritorious, and due upon principles of justice. Or the 
imputation may rest upon the obedience of another, there 


being no personal obedience for it to rest upon. In this- 


CHAPTER IV. 4. 93 


case, the imputation is not a debt, but gracious (xara xdépw), 
or gratuitous (dwpeay, xwpis épywv). It should be carefully 
noted, that St. Paul is speaking here only of the imputation, 
to fallen man, of righteousness. Sin cannot, like righteous- 
ness, be imputed to fallen man, in two modes, one of which 
is meritorious, and the other gratuitous. Sin is imputable 
to man, in only one way. The phrases employed to describe 
the second of these two imputations prove this. Sin is never 
represented as charged to man dwpedy, or xwpis épywv, Or Kara 
evdoxiav Jeov. The imputation of sin, both original and ac- 
tual, is kara opetAnua, only. “Gratia dat beneficium imme- 
renti, justitia poenam non irrogat nisi merenti. Nam in 
imputatione Adi, justitia dei non irrogat poenam imme- 
renti, sed merenti, si non merito proprio et personali, at 
participato et communi, quod fundatur in communione na- 
turali et foederali, que nobis cum Adamo intercedit.” Tur- 
retini Institutio I1X., ix. 24. This arises from the absolute 
contrariety between holiness and sin. The former has the 
creator for its ultimate author; the latter is the work of the 
creature. The former, consequently, may be reckoned to 
the account of man, gratuitously, but the latter cannot be. 
Man can be pronounced innocent when he is not; but he 
cannot be pronounced guilty when he is not. Merit may be 
bestowed gratis, but not demerit. Justification may be a 
gift of God; but damnation cannot be. Eternal life is 
xépirza, but eternal death is dpwva (vi. 23). is] the telic 
use of the preposition (“in order to”) implies that righteous- 
ness was wanting in Abraham. dcxavoovvyny| signifies a con- 
dition in which the person is dikaos in every respect. This, 
in the case of Abraham, as in that of sinful man universally, 
would require the fulfilment of the law both as penalty and 
precept. 


Vur. 4. St. Paul, founding his reasoning upon the state- 


94 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


- A e 
eis Sixatocvvnv. * T@ dé Epyalouévm o pic S0s od Aoyilerat 
\ 7. > \ \ ’ / BIB n \ \ ? / 
KaTa Yap, dd\rAa KaTa opeiAnua: ° TH SE uy Epyalopuéeve, 
micTevovTs O€ éml Tov SiKatovvTa Tov acEeBH, NoyileTaL 1) 


ment which he has quoted from the Old Testament, argues 
that Abraham could not have been justified meritoriously 
(kata capka, or €€ épywv), but must have been justified gra- 
ciously (dwpeay), oé] is transitive: “now.” 74 épyalopeve] 
“the worker:” perfect work is meant, such as is rendered 
by the ideal and sinless workman. Neither the dead work 
of the moralist, nor the imperfect work of the Christian, 
comes up to that absolute perfection which is demanded by 
the law. ‘There is no righteousness, according to St. Paul, 
but what is perfect and absolute. Were there such a thing 
as half-righteousness, it would nevertheless deprive the sin- 
ner of all glory.” Calvin on Rom. iti. 23. puocdos| the re- 
ward which the workman has earned by perfect service. 
Kata xapw| wages actually earned cannot be either tendered, 
or accepted as a gift. Grace is out of the question, in such 
a case. ‘The judge,” remarks Socrates (Apologia, 35), 
“does not sit upon the bench to make a present of justice 
(7G Kataxapiler Jar ra dixaa).” Says Coriolanus (Act ii, 


‘Better it is to die, better to starve, 
Than crave the hire which first we do deserve.” 


Kata ddeiAnua]. The indebtedness of God to man, or angel, 
for service rendered, is only relative. This is taught by 
Christ in Luke xvii. 7-10. (Compare 1 Chron. xxix. 14; 
Rom. xi. 35, 36; 1 Cor. iv. 7.) No creature can make him- 
self a “profitable” servant to the creator, in the sense of 
meriting his “thanks,” and bringing him under an original 
and absolute obligation, This for three reasons: 1. God 
creates from nothing the faculties by which the service is 
rendered; 2. He upholds them in existence while the service 


CHAPTER IV. 5. 95 


is being rendered; and, 3. He influences and assists in the 
service itself. Consequently, the merit of the creature be- 
fore the creator is pactional. It is founded upon a promise 
or covenant, and not upon the original relation between the 
finite and Infinite. God as creator, preserver, and sanctifier, 
is not obligated to promise a reward for a holiness derived 
from Himself; but having promised, he is then bound by his 
own word, and in case of perfect obedience there is a rela- 
tive indebtedness upon his part. Having established by a 
covenant this ground for a reward, it is as firm and immuta- 
ble as if it depended upon the original and necessary relation 
of the Creator to the creature (‘‘for he is faithful that prom- 
ised,” Heb. x. 23), and any perfect service that has been ren- 
dered by man or angel will be rewarded, not xara xapw, but 
Kata odpetAnua. 


Ver. 5. pi epyaCowevw| the idea of perfect work is still in 
view: he who fails to render such a sinless obedience as the 
law requires. ‘This would include the regenerate as well as 
the unregenerate man. The imperfect obedience of the be- 
liever, equally with the disobedience of the unbeliever, fails 
to come up to what is demanded in order that the reward 
may be “reckoned of debt.” The spiritual man is as entire- 
ly dependent upon grace for justification, as is the natural 
man. murevovte dé] the particle is adversative, and denotes 
that the act of believing is different from the act of work- 
ing: the person has failed in ‘ work,” and betakes himself 
to another species of .activity, that of trust and reliance. 
exi| this preposition, like eis and ev, is associated with murev- 
ev, to signify the recumbence and rest of the soul upon the 
object of faith. du«acotvra] is forensic, as doeBq7 shows: the 
man is taken as ungodly, “just as he is,” and is forgiven. 
He is not first made perfectly holy, and then pronounced 
just. Neither is he first made imperfectly holy or partially 


96 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


mlaTis avtTov eis Sixavocvvnv. ° KaSamep Kal Aaveld réeyer 
TOV paKaptopov ToD avIpwrov @ O eos RoyiSerar du- 


sanctified, and then pardoned. Pardon and justification is 
the very first act (after election, vill. 30) which God per- 
forms in reference to the “ungodly.” do¢B7| does not refer 
to any uncommon sin, like the worship of idols, which Abra- 
ham, according to Philo and Josephus (compare Joshua ii, 2, 
14), practised before his call. The English version “un- 
godly” is misleading; since it suggests heinous depravity. 
The term is to be explained by Rom. i. 25, where the common 
sin of mankind is described as the worshipping (éo¢Bdo3noav) 
of the creature, instead of the creator. Every man is idola- 
trous. Covetousness is idolatry, Coloss. iii. 5. Every man, 
consequently, is doeBys in reference to God. He fails to 
worship him. Hence, the term denotes the universal cor+ 
ruption of human nature, as seen in the disinclination to 
honor and glorify God. Compare Rom. v. 6. AoyiLerai, ete. | 
See comment on iy. 3. The fact that Abraham’s faith was 
counted to him for righteousness proves that he was not a 
“ worker.” 


' Ver. 6. St. Paul strengthens his position by a reference 
to the statements of David. «KaJdrep| denotes the agree- 
ment of what is to be said, with what has just been said. 
kai] “also:” the addition of David’s testimony would be 
very weighty, in the eye of a Jew. Aéye| in Ps. xxxii. 
pakapispov| (not paxapia) the felicitation, rather than the 
felicity; prescuneing blessed. Aoyiterar | See comment on 
iv. 3. xwpis epyov]. See comment on iii. 21, 28. “ This 
righteousness is not ours; otherwise God would not gratui- 
tously impute it, but would bestow it as matter of right. 
Nor is it a habit, or quality, for it is ‘without works;’ but 
it is a gratuitous remission, a covering over, a non-imputa- 
tion of sins,” Pareus in loco, 


CHAPTER IV. %,8. 97 


, est 7 , a Sr eS 
Katocuvny xwpis épywv, " Maxdpioe av apédnoay ai avo- 
plat Kal wv eweKarUpIynoav ai auaptiac’ * waKapLos avijp 


Ver. 7 contains a definition and description of the right- 
eousness that is imputed “without nehteousress’’ (xwpis fare 
épywv). The description is taken from Ps. xxxil. 1,2. age 
Snoav| “are forgiven” (Eng. Ver.). This word, by which 
the Septuagint translates nto (of which the primary idea 
seems to be that of lightness, lifting up, Gesenius) signifies, 
to “let go,” or “release.” Forgiveness, in the Biblical rep- 
resentation, is remission of penalty ; the non-infliction of 
judicial suffering upon the guilty. The key to the idea is 
given in Ley. vi. 2-7. “If a soul commit a trespass, he shall 
bring his trespass offering, and the priest shall make an 
atonement for him before the Lord, and it shall be forgiven 
him” (adgdeInoerar aito, Sept.). The punishment due to his 
sin shall be dismissed, or let go, because it has been endured 
for him by the substituted victim. Sin is a debt (Mat. vi. 
12). As, to forgive a debt is, not to collect it, so, to forgive 
a sin is, not to punish it. Accordingly, everywhere in the 
New Testament, ad¢uévar (release) is the term for forgiveness. 
Compare Mat. vi. 12; ix. 2; Acts xili. 38; James v. 15; 
1 John i. 9; ii. 11. érexadvhIynoav] is the Septuagint trans- 
lation of no3, to “cover over,” so as to conceal from view. 
This idea, or representation, of the action of mercy, is com- 
mon in the Old Testament, but not in the New. This is the 
only instance of its use, apapria| this term, like dvopca, is 
most commonly employed in the singular, to denote sin as a — 
principle. But both are occasionally used in the plural, to 
denote the manifestations of sin; duapria defines sin with 
reference to the true end of man’s action; dvozia defines it 
with reference to the true rude of his action. . 


Ver. 8. ov] is supported by SBDE Tisch.: AC Receptus, 
_Lachm, read @ Adcyionta|] the subjunctive is hypothetical, 
5 


98 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


implying that the person is blessed in case that God shall 
not have imputed. The double negative is noticeable: the 
fact that there is certainly no imputation of sin must first be 
established, before there can be the felicitation. In verse 7, 
St. Paul defines the imputation of righteousness to be the 
remission of sin; and in verse 8, to be the non-imputation of 
sin. This brings to view again the intrinsic difference, al- 
ready noticed in the comment upon iy. 3, between the impu- 
tation of righteousness, and the imputation of sin. The 
imputation of righteousness to sinful man ¢éan be defined as 
the non-imputation of sin; but the imputation of sin to sin- 
ful man cannot be defined as the mere non-imputation of 
righteousness. The imputation of sin is a positive, and not 
a negative act. The imputation of righteousness to the sin- 
ner supposes the total absence of righteousness, but the im- 
putation of sin to the sinner does not suppose the total 
absence of sin. It can be said: “ Blessed is the mian to 
whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without righteous- 
ness;” but it cannot be said: “‘ Cursed is the man to whom 
the Lord imputeth sin without sin.” It is also to be ob- 
served, that while St. Paul in this place describes the impu- 
tation of righteousness as being the remission, covering, and 
non-imputation of sin, it does not follow that this is the 
whole of imputation. Christ’s righteousness comprises two 
parts: his sufferings, or passive obedience of the law as pen- 
alty; and his active obedience of the law as precept. Both 
of these are imputed: the one, to deliver the believer from 
condemnation, and the other to entitle him to eternal re- 
ward, St. Paul, at this point, however, is concerned with 
the imputation of the passive obedience. Guilt and con- 
demnation have thus far been chiefly in his eye, and he de- 
fines accordingly. The other side of imputation he pre- 
sents subsequently. Compare vy. 10, 17, 19; 1 Cor. i. 30; 
2 Cor. vi. Ah: 


CHAPTER IV. 9-11 99 


ob ov pa AoylonTas KUpLos apaptiay. ° 0 pmaKapicpos 
obv ovTOS eri THY TEpLTOLHY, 7} Kal eri THY akpoBvaTiar ; 
eyowev yap’ EXoyicdn to ’ABpadw 7 Tiatis els SvKatocv- 
vnv. “ mas odv EdXoyliadn; €v TEpLTOMH OVTL, 1) €V aKpo- 
Buotia ; ovK év qepitoun, GAN ev axpoBvotia. " Kal 

Ver. 9. St. Paul now proceeds to show, in verses 9-13, 
that gratuitous justification is as entirely separate from cir- 
cumcision, as it is from obedience of the moral law.  ovtv| 
introduces the ensuing reasoning as it is related to the fact 
that Abraham, who possessed the righteousness described by 
David, was a cérewmcised person. ovros] supply A€yerat, from 
Xéyer in verse 6; in which case, é7t means ‘ concerning,” as in 
Mat. iii. 7; Mark ix. 12; Heb. vii. 13. xai] shows that mepu- 
touynv denotes the Jews to the exclusion of the Gentiles; DE 
and Vulgate add povoy, which is probably an explanatory 
gloss. Aé€youev] looks back to verse 3. yap] implies an af- 
firmative answer to the second of the two questions. éAc- 
yicIn| though emphatic by position is not to be emphasized; 
neither is “ABpadp, nor miotts. The whole sentence is only 
the recital, a second time, of a quotation; and the stress lies 
upon the quotation as a whole, and not upon any particular 
word. To place the emphasis upon ’Afpadp, as De Wette, 
Fritzsche, Lange, and Alford maintain, is to contemplate 
Abraham as a circumcised person. But this is premature. 
At this point, in the reasoning, Abraham’s circumcision must 
be an open question. 


Ver. 10. 7as] in what condition, or status. ovx év, etc. ] 
the faith of Abraham and its imputation are mentioned in 
Gen. xv., and his circumcision in Gen. xvii. The latter oc- 
curred about fourteen years after the former. 


Ver. 11. cepetov] denotes an external token evident to the 
senses. This term, like o¢payis, gives the key to the notion 


100 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


a »- A a a , A 
onuetov éhaBev tepitouhs, oppayioa Ths Sicatoouvns THs 
mistews THS &v TH akpoBvaTia, eis TO Eivar avTOV TaTEpa 
mdvTwv Tov TLaTevovTaD b¢ axpoBvarTias, els TO NoyLaD}vat 


of a sacrament. A sacrament being a “sign” or “seal,” is 
sensuous. It appeals, in some form or other, to the senses. 
Consequently, no efficiency can be attributed to it; because 
the sensuous cannot energize the spiritual, matter cannot 
move mind. A sacrament, therefore, never operates of itself 
(ex opere operato). A sign requires a signer, and a seal a 
sealer. aepirouqs| SBDEF Vulg., Copt., Rec., Lachm., Tisch. 
The reading zeperoxyv is supported by AC Peshito, Griesbach, 
The sense is the same in either case, since zepiropis is the 
genitive of apposition: ‘he received circumcision, as a 
sign.” odpayida] the impression of a seal upon a document 
is an official certification. Compare John i. 33. This term 
is explanatory of onpetov. The mark of circumcision authen- 
tically certified that Abraham was in covenant with Jehovah. 
In Gen. xvii., circumcision is represented as the seal of a 
covenant ; but the covenant implied a promise on the part 
of Jehovah, and this promise was appropriated by Abraham 
by faith. Hence, St. Paul speaks of circumcision as the sign 
and seal of gratuitous justification. «is 7o] denotes the in- 
tention of God, who. designed by the fact that Abraham 
believed previous to circumcision, that he should be the 
spiritual father of believing Gentiles, as well as believing 
Jews. matépa] is anarthrous, to denote a father in a particu- 
lar sense. 60 dxpoSvorias| the preposition here has the 
“loose” sense of “denoting the circumstances and rela- 
tions under which one does something” (Winer, p. 579). 
kat] is supported by CDEL Vulg., Peshito, Aith., Ree., 
Meyer, and omitted by RAB Copt., Lachm., Tisch. It is 
favored by the connection of thought. It was the divine 
purpose that righteousness should be imputed to the Gen-. 


CHAPTER IV. 12. 101 


“ , / a a 
Kal avtois THY Stkatoouvny, * Kal TAaTépa TEpLTOMHS, Tots 
ovK kK TEpLTOMAS MoVvOV, GANA Kal TOis GTOLYOvTW TOIS 


tiles also, equally with the Jews. The clause eis to AoywoI7- 
vat, ete., is explanatory of the preceding clause eis 70 eivae 
avrov, etc., and shows that spiritual and not carnal paternity 
was intended by God. Abraham was to be a father to this 
class of Gentiles, because they exercised the same faith that 
he did, and had the same kind of righteousness imputed to 
them. Christ had previously taught this truth in Mat. iii. 
9; John viii. 39; and St. Paul returns to it again in Rom. 
ix. 8 sq., and Gal. iii. 7 sq. tHv duxatoovvnv| is supported by 
BCEL. Rec., Lachm.: the article is omitted by ND Tisch. 


Ver. 12. xai] is to be mentally followed by eis ro etvae 
avrov. mepttowys| is anarthrous, to denote some, not all of 
the circumcised. Abraham was, of course, to be the spirit- 
ual father of circumcised Jews, as well as of uncircumcised 
Gentiles; yet not from the mere fact of circumcision and 
carnal descent, as he proceeds to state. ots] ‘those name- 
ly:” the dative either of advantage, or of relation (Luke vii. 
12; Rev. xxi. 7). St. Paul now specifies what class of the 
Jews are the spiritual children of Abraham. jpovov] is con- 
nected with oik. who are “not only” circumcised, but who, 
etc. «xai] denotes that in addition to circumcision, the per- 
sons spoken of a/so “walk in the steps,” etc. tots ororxotow | 
the article is not superfluous, but employed for emphasis. 
Theodoret, Luther, and others, take rots ov« for ov Tots, so 
that two classes, namely, Jews and Gentiles, would be men- 
tioned, in verse 12, as having Abraham for their father. 
But, the apostle has already, in the preceding verse, affirmed 
that Abraham is the spiritual father of believing Gentiles. 
Hence, the clause tots crorxotow, etc., must refer to the same 
class that rots ovx, etc., refers to, It mentions a characteris- 


102 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


” a > > / / la) X ¢€ lal 
iyverw Ths €v axpoBvotia mliotews TOU TaTpOS Hav 
5) p pe) \ \ 1 eieg / a» \ 
ABpadp. “od yap bia vouov 4 émrayyedia TO “ABpaap 
a , a ‘ ' sen 5 , 
 T@® oTrépuate avTov, TO KANpoVvopov aUTOV EivaL KOGMOV, 


tic in addition to that of circumcision, by virtue of which 
this class of the Jews are the spiritual children of Abraham. 
ixveow] conveys the notion of exact following after: the feet 
are carefully put in the tracks of the leader: “I follow here, 
the footing of thy feete” (Spenser). The dative is rather 
local, than normative. tis év axpoBvotia mictews| is a much 
simpler reading than ris mictews THs ev TH akpoBvotia (L Rec.), 


and is supported by NXABCDEFG Lachm., Tisch. 


Ver. 13 confirms the position that Abraham was to be the 
father of all believing Gentiles, by considering the nature of 
the promise that was made to him. ydp| introduces the 
point. voxov] denotes the moral law, yet unwritten in the 
day of Abraham. The “law” is here put for the “ works 
of the law,” and is equivalent to perfect obedience. The | 
promise did not come to Abraham through the instrumental- 
ity (dia) of this. eéxayyeAia] supply éyevero. The promise is 
that mentioned in Gen. xxii. 17,18. o7épparc] not carnal, 
but spiritual offspring. Gal. ii. 7, 16; Rom. ix. 7-9; John 
vii. 39. «Anpovopoy| spiritual inheritance, like that in Mat. 
v. 5; Dan. vii. 27. «xédopov] implies the universality of the 
Divine intention: “In thy seed, all the nations of the earth 
” Abraham was promised only the land of 
Canaan (Gen. xvii. 8); but this, in Scripture, is represented 


shall be blessed. 


as the centre of departure for the Messiah’s universal king- 
dom (Acts i. 4; John iv. 22), and often stands for the 
Church universal. Compare Mat. xix. 28; Luke xxii, 30. 
dicaoovvys miotews| trust and confidence in God’s gracious 
justification, and not in personal and perfect obedience, was 
the condition (da) of the promise to Abraham and his seed, 


CHAPTER IV. 14, 15. 103 


adr Sia Sixavocvvys Tictews. ™ 


el yap ol €k vomov KXy- 
, f ¢€ / \ / e ’ , 
Povopol, KEKEVWTAL 1) TioTIS Kal KaTHpYNTAaL n eTayyeNia. 


t6..> \ , = \ / ae \ > ” / 
0 yap vomos opynyv KaTepyaleTaL* ov O€ OVK ETTLY VOLOS, 


that they should have a universal dominion, and be a univer- 
sal blessing to mankind. The evangelical promise is made 
to faith, and not to works. 


” 


Ver. 14 continues the proof that the promise to Abraham 
and his spiritual seed was not 614 vopov GdXO bua TioTews. ex | 
denotes the source and ground of the heirship. Compare 1. 
8; iv. 12; Acts x. 45; Gal. iii. 10. vémov| as in verse 13, is 
put for gpya vdpov, and signifies obedience of the law. St. 
Paul does not mean by ot ék vopuov, those who desire or at- 
tempt to be justified by the law, but who actually are. They 
are a class who can claim the inheritance upon the ground 
of desert. If there were any such class among men, they 
would have nothing to do with either faith or a gracious 
promise. The “law” spoken of here is not the Mosaic law 
particularly, since Abraham lived before this was given, but 
law in the abstract. «xarypyytar| perfect obedience nullifies 
faith, and vice versa. If the inheritance is to rest upon a 
complete fulfilment of the command, then it cannot rest 
upon a gracious promise. Compare the similar reasoning in 


ce ae 


Ver. 15. A confirmation of the statement in the preced- 
ing verse, introduced by yap. épyjv| the personal displacency » 
of God towards sin, manifested subjectively in remorse of 
conscience, and objectively in the penal evils of this and the 
future life. The moral law, in relation to sinful man, oper- 
ates in the mode of retribution, and therefore cannot be the 
medium of a promise of good. For the transgressor, the 
law is a threat and aterror. This is the very contrary of a 
promise. ov dé ovd«, etc. ] (SABC Pesh., Copt., Lachm., Tisch, 


104 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


b) \ / 16 \ a b] / ivf \ , 
ovde TrapaBacts. dua ToUTO €x TrigTEws, iva KaTAa Yap, 
eis TO elvar BeBaiay THY eTayyedlay TavTL TO oTrEéppaTt, OU 

wae | a , , ’ \ \ no ' ? , 
T@ €K TOU VO“OV MOVOY, GANA Kai TO EK TigTews “ABpaap, 


read 6¢; DEF Ree. read yap). The logical connection of this 
clause with the preceding is somewhat obscure, owing to its 
negative form, and the ellipses. The reasoning of the apos- 
tle in verse 15 is this: The law works wrath [ wherever there 
is sin]; but [among men] there is sin wherever there is law. 
The second of these positions is stated in a negative form, 
and requires the positive part to be supplied. The complete 
sentence would run thus: ov d€ éorw rapaBaots, exet vopos* ov 
d€ ovK EaTW Vvopos, oOvde TapaBacts. ‘The sin is as wide as the 
law; and the law has been shown to be as wide as the race 


(ii. 12-16). 


Ver. 16. da totro] a conclusion from verses 14,15. & 
mistews| supply of KAypovdpor ety, from verse 14; since é 
miotews is antithetic to é« vopov. Kata xapw]| supply 9 émayye- 
Nia yevyrat, from the subsequent érayyeAiav.  €is 70] the divine 
purpose. BeBaiar| is opposed to karypyyrat in verse 14: “firm,” 
because depending upon God’s word, and not upon man’s 
obedience. The evangelical promise secures human obedi- 
ence, and consequently does not rest upon it. o7éppare] 
spiritual and not carnal descent is meant, as iniv. 13. od 7a] 
SC. oméppatt. €k Tod vosov| describes the Jew, but the believ- 
ing Jew, because he is a part of ray to oréppa. The Jew as 
merely carnally descended from Abraham, was no part of the 
“seed” here spoken of: “for they are not all Israel which 
are of Israel; neither because they are the seed of Abraham 
are they all children,” ix. 6, 7. Hence, vouov, in this place, 
is not put for épya voumov, or perfect legal obedience, as it is 
in verses 13, 14, and elsewhere. It stands for the Mosaic 
economy simply. Compare Heb. vii. 19; x. 1. xal r@] se. 


CHAPTER IV. 17%. 105 


id > \ , e A 17 \ , er 
bs eotw TaTHp TavTav nov \ (Kadws yeypamtas OTL Ta- 
Tépa ToAN@v éedvav TédeKa ce) KaTEévavTL ov éTiaTEVCEV 


oméppatt, ek miotews “ABpaay| qualifies TO o7éppatt. This 
class were believing Gentiles, having Abraham’s faith, but 
not Abraham’s blood. The other class had both the faith 
and the blood; and both united made up the whole spiritual 
seed, The comment of Theophylact is excellent: “To all 
the seed, that is to say, to all believers: not only those be- 
lievers who are of the law, that is, who are circumcised, but 
those believers also who are uncircumcised, who are a seed 
of Abraham begotten to him by faith.” The phrase é« 
miotews ABpadu is antithetic to ek Tod véuov, only for the pur- 
pose of distinguishing the circumcised believer from the 
uncircumcised. 'The antithesis must not be pressed so far 
as to imply that those Jews who constituted a part of the 
total seed alluded to were not also éx miotews “ABpaap. os 
eorw, etc.| a repetition of verses 11 and 12. tor] ‘us be- 
lievers.” 


Ver. 17 cites from the Old Testament (Gen. xvii. 5), in 
proof that Abraham is the father of all believers, both Gen- 
tile and Jewish. The quotation is best regarded as paren- 
thetical, so that xatévavr, etc., is immediately connected with 
6s éotw ratnp, etc. (Eng. Ver., Lachm., Meyer, Tholuck, Al- 
ford, Hodge). zodddv éIvav] Abraham could have been the 
father of only one nation, if carnal paternity were meant. 
téJexa] ‘ appointed,” or ‘ constituted.” The word denotes 
that the paternity spoken of was the result of a special ar- 
rangement or economy. It would not be used to denote the 
merely physical connection between father and son. No 
one would say that Philip was appointed to be the father of 
Alexander. xatévavr.] coram: “in the presence of” (Mark 


xi. 2). The eternity of God precludes sequences in his con- 
pk 
5 


106 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


a a la] \ \ \ fo} A x 
Seod tod CwotrotodvTos Tous vEeKpoUs Kal KadovVTOS Ta MN 
évta ws Ovta. “Os map édmida em EdmidL EeioTEvCE?, 


sciousness, and implies that all things and events are simul- 
taneous in his intuition. The full construction is: xatévavte 
Tov Jeov, Karevavte ov éemiotevcev. Compare the similar struc- 
ture in Luke i. 4: zepi dv xarnyyn Ins Adywv, for wept TOY Adywr, 
wept Gv katnxnIns (Meyer). vexpovs| the primary reference is 
to the circumstances of Abraham mentioned in verse 19, but 
this for the purpose of illustrating the agency of God in the 
act of gratuitous justification. The word that blots out sin 
is a creative word. This is implied in Christ’s question: 
‘‘ Whether is easier to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee: or to 
say, Rise up and walk?” Luke v. 23, «xadotvros] the crea- - 
tive call of the Almighty. ‘Isa. xl. 4; xlviii. 13. 7a pa ovra] 
the subjective negative is employed, because the non-entity 
is relative, and not absolute. It may be displaced by entity, 
if God so please. The phrase, xadely ra py OvTa ws OvTa, 1s 
equivalent to creare ex nihilo. The same exertion of infinite 
power, though not under precisely the same form of state- 
ment, is described in 1 Cor. 1. 28; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Heb. xi. 3; 
Coloss. i. 16; Gen. i. 3. In 2 Maccabees vii. 28, it is said 
that God “made the heaven and the earth, and all that is 
therein, é& ov« dvrwv.” Philo (De creatione, 728 b) employs 
phraseology like that of St. Paul: 7a py ova éxddeoer eis TO 
eva. The primary reference of ra py ovra is to the posterity 
of Abraham who were not yet born; the secondary reference 
is to the justification of the wngodly (iv. 5). When God 
imputes righteousness without righteousness (xwpis epywv), he 
calls that which is not, as though it were. 


Ver. 18. St. Paul now (verses 18-21) gives a more par- 
ticular description of Abraham’s faith. aap’ édmida] ‘ be- 
yond,” or “contrary to” hope considered objectively: hope 


CHAPTER IV. 19, 20. TOF 


. \ , > \ / A b} A \ A ’ 
Eis TO yevéodat avTov TaTépa TOANaY EIVOV KaTa TO Eipn- 
péevov Ovtws éctar TO oTéppa cov, ” Kal pn acdIevncas 
Ti) TIGTEL KATEVONTEVY TO EAVTOD THA VEveKpwevoV, Exa- 
TOVTAETHS TOU UTapYwV, Kal THY VéKpwoW THS pHTpAs 

4 20 > \ \ > f la) lal > / lod 
Zdppas, * els 5& tHy érayyediav Tod Jeod od Siexpidn TH 
> ’ A lal al 
aTLOTIA, GNA évedvvaodn TH TiaTeL, Sods SoEav TO Jed, 


in all external respects. é2’ eid] the preposition has the 
signification of “because of,” “on the ground of,” as in Mat. 
mx. 9; Luke i.59; Phil. i. 3; Heb. vii. 11;, viii. 6. Hope, 
in this case, is viewed subjectively. Abraham was inwardly 
hopeful, when all was outwardly hopeless. Contrary to 
hope, he yet, on account of his hope, believed the promise. 
eis to] denotes the divine purpose. In the plan of God, 
Abraham believed in order that he might become the father 
of all believers. eipnuévov] in Gen. xv. 5. ovrws] i. e., like 
the stars in multitude. 


Ver. 19. py adoJevyoas tH micTe] is a meiosis for ioyvpar 
miotw éxwv (Theophylact). See comment on i. 13. Karevon- 
cev| (the reading of SABC Copt., Lachm., Tisch.; DEFL 
Peshito, Vulg., Ree. read ot xarevoecey) denotes distinct 
notice and observation, Heb. iii. 1; x. 24; Luke xii 24. 
Abraham plainly saw the physical impossibility in the case, 
Gen. xvii. 17. The retention of od makes the clause od xare- 
voecev, etc., nearly equivalent to the clause ov duexpidy, etc., 
and also destroys the adversative force of 6ée. 


Ver. 20. de] is adversative; Abraham distinctly perceived 
the deadness, etc., but yet, etc. dvexpidn] has the middle 
signification (compare 1 Cor. xi. 31): “he did not scrutinize 
into” (eis). Meyer renders: “he did not doubt in reference 
to” (eis). éevedvvaywdy] “became, or grew, strong,” Heb. xi. 
34. ior] instrumental dative. dots] ‘since he gave.” 
d0gav| honor to God’s power and promise. 


108 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


™ kat mrAnpohopndeis, Ste O emryyedtas SuvaTos éoTi Kai 

n 22 A \ b / > an > - 23 ’ 
Toujoat. ™ duo Kal édoyicIn avT@ eis SuKatoovvyv. ouK 
eypadn dé dv avdtrov povov, dtt édoyicdn aiT@, ™ adra 
Kal Ov nas, ois méddrEL AoyiGecIat, Tols muaTEevovaww ET 
Tov éyeipavta “Incobv tov Kupiov nuov ex vexpav, ” Os 
mTapesodn Sia TA TapaTT@Opata Huav Kal HyépIn Sia THY 
OLKAlwoWW HU@D. 


Ver. 21. zAnpodopynteis] denotes complete conviction. 
Compare xiv. 5. If Gen. xvii. 17 be compared with Gen. 
xv. 6, there is an apparent contradiction. The latter, how- 
ever, implies only a momentary wavering of Abraham’s faith, 
like that of John the Baptist. See Mat. xi. 2sq. Neither 
Abraham nor John fell away into absolute unbelief. émyy- 
yeArat] is middle. 


Ver. 22. The summary conclusion from the whole narra~ 
tive in verses 18-21, and looking back to verse 3. 610] “ on 
this account.” 


Ver. 23. The paragraph in verses 23-25 exhibits the rela- 
tion of the Old Testament testimony concerning Abraham, 
to all believers. 6’ atrov povoy| merely for the purpose of 
showing the way and manner of Abraham’s justification, 
alone. 


Ver. 24. &¢° jas] i. e., to show how we are justified. eA- 
Aer] denotes the continuing purpose of God. doyi€erJat] se. 
mots. éyeipavta| this particular exertion of divine power is 
chosen with reference to the vexpovs and véxpoow of verses 17 
and 19, and because it is the highest exercise of power. 


Ver. 25. mapeddIn] to death. Compare viii. 32. 6 za- 
partwopata] on account of their guilt, which is expiated by 
the aorypror (ili. 25). 7yépSn| Christ’s resurrection was in-_ 


CHAPTER IV. 25. 109 


dispensable in order to the act of faith in Christ’s death. 
Compare v. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 17. The death constitutes the 
atonement for guilt, but had Christ never risen from the 
dead, no man could have appropriated it, because there 
would have been no evidence that he had conquered death, 
and no living person in whom to believe. duxaiwow] the 
state of justification, as distinguished from the act, which 
is denoted by dixauwpa (v. 18). 


CHAPTER V. 


" AcxawwSévtes ody ex TicTEwWS ElpnYnY ExXoMEV TpOS 
tov Jeov dia Tod Kupiov npuav ‘Incob Xpictod, * dv ob Kab 


§ 3. The effects of gratuitous justification. Rom. v.~viii. 


Sr. Pauw has described the necessity of the righteousness 
by faith, in Rom. i. 18-iii. 20; and the nature of it, includ- 
ing its harmony with the Old Testament, in iii, 21-iv. 20. 
He now proceeds to describe the effects of this righteous- 
ness, in v.—vill. 


Ver. 1. dixowIeres]| See comment on ill. 20. otv] draws 
a conclusion from the matter in iii. 21-iv. 25.  eipyvnv] justi- 
fication, rather than sanctification, is intended by this word. 
It is the subjective pacification of the conscience resulting 
from the objective satisfaction of divine justice. Paul does 
not begin to discuss sanctification, as one of the effects of the 
gratuitous righteousness of God, until chapter vi. He be- 
gins with the first and more immediate effect, namely, the re- 
moval of remorse, and mental tranquillity before the offended 
law. The justified person is no longer an éyJpos (v. 10), and 
no longer under épyy (iv. 15; v. 9). Compare John xiv. 27; 
xvi. 33; Eph. i. 14. €youev] we retain this reading upon 
dogmatic grounds, with the majority of commentators, al- 
though the subjunctive ¢xomev is by far the most strongly 
supported (RABCDL Pesh., Copt., Aith., Vulg., Lachm., 
Tisch., Tregelles). The writer now mentions an actual and- 


CHAPTER V. 2. Ti? 


THY Tpocaywyny eoxyiKapev eis THY Yaplv TaUTHY Ev 
éotyjxapev, cai kavyopeda em érmids tis b0Ens Tod Seod. 


necessary effect of justification, namely, peace with God. 
This requires the indicative. The subjunctive mode, in the 
hortatory signification certainly, is entirely out of place here. 
The connection between God’s act of justification and peace 
of conscience is that of cause and effect, and it would be 
illogical in the highest degree to exhort a person who has 
experienced the operation of the cause, to labor that the 
effect may follow. Given the cause, the effect follows of 
course. Perhaps, however, the concessive signification of 
the subjunctive might be defended here, by one who should 
insist upon taking the reading which has such a strong 
diplomatic support: “ Being justified, we may have peace.” 
The subjunctive, in this signification, approximates to the 
future (Winer, p. 285); and the Peshito-(Murdock’s Trans. ) 
renders: ‘‘ Because we are justified by faith, we shall have 
peace.” The reading éyopev would in this case yield a sense 
as consistent, both logically and doctrinally, as the reading 
éxomev. mpos| denotes relation: “in respect to.” tov Jeov| 
the article denotes God in his trinitarian plenitude: the 
Godhead. The divine Being, irrespective of Christ’s iAaor7- 
ptov, is displacent towards man as sinful, and man as sinful is 
hostile towards the divine Being. Peace between the holy 
nature of God and the guilty will of man, is mediated by an 
act and work of one of the persons of the Godhead incar- 
nate: dua “Incot Xpurrod. 


Ver. 2. wat] “also.” Christ is not only the atonement, 
but he is the access to it. John xiv. 6; Acts v. 31; Eph. 
iii. 12; Heb. xii. 2. yépw] the grace that imputes faith for 
righteousness. éé$yxapev] the present of a completed action. 
Compare 1 Cor. xv.1.  kxavywpedal ie., & 7 kavyopeda, Self- 


112 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


“ov povov o€, dAAa Kal Kavywpmeda év Tais Irie, ei- 
Sotes OTe 7 IrtYpus vropoviy xatepyateras, ‘1 Sé vrrowov7, 
Soxinv, 7 Sé Sox Edrrida+ * 7 5é EAmris Ov KaTaLTyUVEL, 


congratulation in the good sense is meant; for examples see 
Rom. viii. 36 sq.; 2 Cor. xi. 30; Mat. v.10. Joy is combined 
with self-congratulation in possessing the blessing of justifi- 
cation. é7'] “over,” or “on account of.” Winer, p. 408, 
Thayer’s Ed. d0&ys]| a comprehensive term for all the divine 
attributes in their celestial manifestation. Compare Ex. 
xxxili. 18; Mat. xvi. 27; John xvii. 5. Jeod] subjective 
genitive: ‘‘God’s heavenly glory.” 


Ver. 3. od povoy b€,] sc. kavywpeda ex edridt. Kavywopeda] 
See comment on verse 2. tats] ‘those well-known afflic- 
tions.” iddres|] “since we'know.” ‘tropovny] the power of 
patient endurance is the result. katepyacerat| “ works out.” 


Ver. 4. doxysnv] denotes: 1. the act of trying: the experi- 
ment, 2 Cor. vili. 2; 2. the result of the trial: the experience, 
2 Cor. ii. 9. The latter is the meaning here. éA7ida] the 
hope of seeing the divine glory which accompanies justifica- 
tion is strengthened by the experience of afflictions. 


Ver. 5. 7 éAmis] the hope of heavenly glory thus tried. 
kataicxvver| to make ashamed (or to terrify) by failure. Per- 
haps the latter is the better rendering. Compare Ps. xxii. 5, 
where the Septuagint translates swin (of which, according to 
Gesenius, the primary meaning is not to blush from shame, 
but to turn pale from terror) by xatyoxivInoay. ore] intro- 
duces the reason why the hope does not disappoint. S<od] 
1. subjective genitive: God’s love towards us (Orig., Chrys., 
Ambrose, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Olsh., De Wette, Mey 
2. objective genitive: our love to God (Theodoret, Au 
Anselm, and the Papal divines, from dogmatic considera 


CHAPTER V. 6. itty 


fad fo, 3} , a an 3 , > a U e A \ 
6Tu n ayaTn Tov Jeod éxxéyvTat év Tals Kapdiais nuov dua 
c la} ‘ a \ s » 
TVEVLATOS ayiou TOD dodevTos Huiv. * ETL yap Xptotos, ov- 
ToY nuav acdevay ert, KaTa Katpov UTép acEeBav amréda- 


tions). Verse 8 shows that the first interpretation is the cor- 
rect one. ékxexvrac] denotes an exuberant communication, 
Compare Acts ii. 17; x. 45; Tit. iii. 6. ev tats xapdias] the 
dative denotes motion in place: ‘within our hearts.” — zvev- 
patos] the Holy Spirit produces in the believer an seicilitied 
and overflowing consciousness that he is the object of God’s 
redeeming love; and this is the guaranty that his hope will 


not disappoint him. 


Ver. 6. er yap] SACD Rec., Lach., Tisch. (ei yes B). yap 
introduces the death of Christ as the evidence of God’s love. 
Xpwros| separates ére from dvtwv, to which it belongs, by rea- 
son of emphasis and the crowd of thoughts. Meyer, in loco, 
cites similar instances from Plato. doaJer@v| Sin is helpless- 
ness (a privative, and oevds), especially contemplated as 
guilt. Man is powerless to atone for sin. én] repeated 
after doJevav seems superfluous, but is strongly supported 
by SABCD Lachm., Tisch. It would agree better with the 
Vatican reading, «i ye: “If, surely, we being still without 
strength, etc.” xara xarpov] “at the appointed time.” It is 
to be construed with dréJavey, Compare Gal. iv. 4; Eph. i. 
10. tzép| as verse 7 shows, has here the signification of dvre. 
Compare Luke xxii. 19, 20; John xi. 50; 1 Cor. 1.13; 2 Cor. 
Pees, 20, 21: 1 Pet. iii. 18. Winer (Thayer’s Ed., 
p- 383) remarks that ‘ izép is sometimes nearly equivalent to 
avti, instead, loco (see, especially, Kurip., Alcest., 700; Phi- 
lemon, 13; Thue. i. 141; Polyb., 3, 67, 7).”. He adds, how- 
ever, in a note, somewhat inconsistently with the above re- 
mark: “Still, in doctrinal passages relating to Christ’s death 
(Gal. iii, 13; Rom. v. 6, 8; xiv, 15; 1 Pet. iii. 18), it is not 


114 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


justifiable to render irép qpév, and the like, rigorously by 
instead of, on account of such parallel passages as Mat. xx. 
28 (Fritzsche, Rom. i. 267). *Avri is the more definite of the 
two prepositions. ‘“Yzep signifies merely for men, for their 
deliverance; and leaves undetermined the precise sense in 
which Christ died for them.” But, the fact, conceded by 
Winer, that tép “is sometimes nearly equivalent to évri,” 
shows that it has a twofold sense, and therefore it must be 
left to the context to determine the meaning. The same 
ambiguity is found in the English preposition fer. To die 
“for” a man may mean either to die in his place, or for his 
benefit. In which sense the preposition is to be taken, must 
be decided by the connection. But either signification is 
possible. De Wette (com. on Rom. v. 7) says, ‘twep kann 
anstatt und fiir heissen: Ll Cor. v. 20.” Baur (Paulus der 
Apostel, s. 165) remarks: “Wenn auch in vielen Stellen 
das droJavety irép nur ein Sterben zum Besten Anderer ist, 
so kann doch wohl in den Stellen, Rom. iv. 25; Gal. i. 4; 
Rom. viii. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 3; 2 Cor. v. 14, der Begriff der Stell- 
vertretung, wenigstens der Sache nach, nicht zuriickgewiesen 
werden.” Compare, also, Magee On Atonement, Disserta- 
tion xxx. The reason why St. Paul employs tzép, not ex- 
clusively, but more frequently than dv7/, when speaking of 
the vicariousness of Christ’s death, is this: izép having two 
meanings can teach the two facts that Christ died in the 
place of, and for the benefit of, the believer; while év7i, hav- 
ing but one signification, can mention but one of them. The 
more comprehensive of the two prepositions is preferred in 
the majority of instances. doeBdv] See the explanation of 
this word in the comment on 1v. 8. 


Ver. 7. irép] See comment on verse 6. dixaiov] a strict 
and exactly just man who gives to every one his due; no 
more, and no less. The term excludes compassionate beney-. 


CHAPTER V. 7 115 


retake 2 \ {home ’ 5) a eS, \ 
vey " modus yap viép Sukaiov Tis amroIavettay* bTép yap 
Tov ayatod Taya Tis Kal TOAWG aTodavely: * cuVicTHOW 


olence, which bestows more than is due. Justice is venera- 
ble and admirable, but not winning. Though abstractly 
possible, yet it would be altogether improbable (j0Ars), that 
an ordinary imperfect man should be so impressed by this 
rigorous and exact attribute, as to lay down his life for it. 
Only the perfect God-man has done this. dzoJavetrar| the 
future here expresses something that is never likely to occur 
(Winer, p. 279). yap] in both instances in this verse as- 
signs an explanatory reason, with reference to the statement 
in verse 6 that Christ died for the ungodly. This is an ex- 
traordinary thing, and not to be expected, for two reasons: 
1. for one would hardly die for a strictly upright man; 2. 
Jor, possibly, one would venture to die for a man who had 
been compassionate to him. The English rendering, “ yet,” 
is erroneous. Tod dyatod] the article denotes the particular 
individual of this class, and implies that such men are rare. 
diucaiov is anarthrous, because only the class is thought of, 
and this class is more numerous than the other. Men are 
more inclined to be exactly just, than to be generous and 
compassionate: to give what is due, than to give more than 
is due. dyaJod is antithetic to dicaiov, and denotes the bene- 
factor: the kind and compassionate man. ‘ Vir bonus est, 
qui prodest, quibus potest, nocet nemini.” Cicero, De Offi- 
ciis, iii. 15. Compare Luke xviii. 18; xxiii. 50; Rom. vii. 
12; and the Hebrew p»qy and ston. The Rabbins explain 
these words thus: “The just man says to his neighbor, All 
mine is mine and all your’s is your’s. The good man says, 
All your’s is your’s alone, and all mine is your’s also.” It is 
remarkable that a passage containing a contrast so sharp as 
that between justice and benevolence, and a meaning so 
plain, should have called out such a variety of interpreta- 


116 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


\ i" € Ld 3 / ’ € “ air’ X ow v € Lol 
dé tiv éavTov ayany eis Nuas O Jeos OTL ETL auapTwdov 
” € a \ e \ € [a] ? , : 9 a 5 
évTav nuav Xpictos vrép nuav amédavev* ° TOAA@ ovV 

a f a ’ a 7 > a , 
HaANov SixawIévTes voV ev TO aipatt avToD cwInoopeda 


tions. taxa] in the classics, expresses possibility, yet accom- 
panied with doubt. 


Ver. 8. ovvicrnow] “sets (toro) in a strong light.” Com- 
pare iii. 5. The position of the verb is emphatic. éavrov| 
reflexive for emphasis: “his own.” én] the benefit con- 
ferred by the divine compassion is prior to all excellence or 
merit, as well as to all strength (4o3evav, ver. 6) upon man’s 
part. wmép] the connection implies substitution, as in v. 6; 
viii. 32. dméJavev| as an thaoryptoy, ill. 25. 


VER. 9. ToAA@ padAov] expresses the great certainty of the 
believer’s salvation, in view of what has been said in verses 
7 and 8. A man might perhaps be willing to die for his 
benefactor, but not for an exactly upright man who pays all 
debts, but confers no benefits. But God makes a self-sacri- 
fice for the positively wicked, who are neither just nor beney- 
olent, and while they are still in this state of wickedness. It 
is certain, consequently, that those who are the chosen ob- 
jects of such compassionate love as this will be saved. Com- 
pare v.15, 17. viv] if justified nowin time, we shall be 
saved hereafter in eternity. aiuar:] the life-blood when 
poured out in death is expiatory; typically, in the instance 
of the Levitical lamb, actually, in the instance of the Lamb 
of God. John i. 36. épyyjs| for the explanation of this word,’ 
see comment on i. 18, and the author’s Theological Essays, 
pp. 268-284. It denotes a personal emotion, and not merely 
an abstract attribute. A divine emotion is a divine attribute 
in energy. In relation to it, the oblation of Christ is called a 
“ propitiation ” (tAacpos), 1 John ii. 2; iv. 10. The feeling of 
anger towards sin, is not incompatible with the feeling of 


CHAPTER V. 10. T1¥ 


b] a a 
Sv avtov amo THs opyns. ef yap éyIpol dvTes KaTHdAd- 
ynuev TO Ie@ Ova TOD Javarou Tov viod avTOv, TONA® pan- 


compassionate benevolence (dayd7y, ver. 7) towards the sin- 
ner. The very Being who is displeased, is the very same 
Being who, though a placatory atonement of his own pro- 
viding, saves from the displeasure. The supplication of the 
litany: “From thy wrath, Good Lord deliver us,” implies 
that it is God’s compassion (dydé7y) that saves from God’s 
anger (épyy), and, consequently, that both feelings co-exist 
in the divine nature. 


Ver. 10. A confirmatory explanation of verse 9.  éxJpoi] 
the passive signification (the holy God displeased with 
wicked man) is the meaning here (Calvin, De Wette, Tholuck, 
Fritzsche, Meyer). This is corroborated by the épyy rod Jed, 
from which the believer is saved by Christ’s iNacrypuov. It is 
not the wrath of man toward God, but of God toward man, 
that requires the reconciliation. It is true, that the subjec- 
tive wrath of the human conscience (not toward God, but 
toward the man himself) requires appeasement and pacifica- 
tion, and obtains it through this same vicarious atonement 
of the Son of God; but this point is not brought into view 
here. The co-existence and compatibility of dyary and dpyy 
in the Supreme Being is seen in the fact here spoken of by 
St. Paul, that God’s compassion for the soul of man prompts 
him to appease or “ propitiate” his own wrath at the sin of 
man. The highest form of love, that, namely, of self-sacri- 
fice, prompts the triune God to satisfy his own justice, in the 
room and place of the sinner who has incurred the penalty 


of justice. In the work of vicarious atonement, God himself 


is both the offended and the propitiating party. This is 
taught in 2 Cor. v. 18: “God hath reconciled us to him- 
self ;” Coloss. i. 20: “to reconcile all things to himself.” 


a 


/ 
fo 


118 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Nov KaTadnrayévtes coInobpeda ev TH wn adTod, od povov 

Oé, AANA Kal Kavy@pmevor ev TO Sed Sa Tod Kupiov nua@v 
? led cf 7 

> a a > e a 

Incod Xpictod, S¢ ob viv THY KaTaddNayny EhaBowev. 


God, in the person of Jesus Christ, is judge, priest, and sacri- 
fice, all in one Being. The common objections to the doc- 
trine of the propitiation of the divine anger, rest upon 
the unitarian idea of the deity. According to this view, 
which denies personal distinctions in the Essence, God, if 
propitiated, must be propitiated by another being than God. 
Christ is merely a creature. The influence of the atonement 
upon God is, therefore, a foreign influence from the sphere 
of the finite. But, according to the trinitarian idea of the 
Supreme Being, it is God who propitiates God. Both the 
origin and the influence’ of the atonement are personal, and 


not foreign, to the deity. The transaction is wholly in the 


divine Essence. The satisfaction of justice, or the propitia- 
tion of anger (whichever terms be employed, and both are 
employed in Scripture), is required by God, and made by 
God. And the infinite and everlasting benefits of such a 
trinitarian transaction are graciously and gratuitously be- 
stowed upon the guilty creatures for whom, doJeveis ere (ver. 
6), and érz dpaptodo. dvres (ver. 8), the transaction took place. 
KaTy\Adynpev| is used in the passive signification: ‘so that 
God is no longer unreconciled with man” (Meyer). Gay] If 
the death of Christ effects the conciliation of God’s justice 
to man, certainly the dife of the glorified Christ will not leave 
redemption incompiete. 


Ver. 11. od povoy dé] supply cwInodue9a (compare v. 3). 
G\XG. Kat] supply coInodpeda, Kavyvevor] is used in the good 
sense, denoting a union of joy and triumphant self-congratu- 
lation. It qualifies cwInconeda, understood. karahAayyv} 
This important word is rendered ‘‘ atonement,” in the Eng- 


CHAPTER V. 11. 119 


lish version. At the time when the version was made, 
atonement = at-one-ment, or reconciliation. The present 
use of the word atonement makes it equivalent to expiation, 
or satisfaction. This latter is the true meaning of karad\ayy, 
in this passage. The term denotes, primarily, that which is 
paid in exchange, in the settlement of a disagreement or dif- 
ference between two parties. Parties are ‘‘ reconciled” with 
each other, by one paying to the other a stipulated sum: the 
katadAayy (the “balance”). Then, the effect is put for the 
cause; and xaradAayy comes to have the secondary significa- 
tion of reconciliation itself. There is an allusion to these 
two meanings of the term, in Athenzus, x. 35. ‘“‘ Why do 
we say of a tetradrachma that xaradAdrreror, when we never 
speak of its getting into a passion?” A coin can be “ ex- 
changed,” but not “reconciled.” The same metonymy of 
effect for cause is seen in the Saxon word bot, from which 
the modern ‘‘ boot” is derived. This, primarily, signifies the 
compensation paid to the injured party by the offender; 
then, secondly, the harmony or reconciliation effected be- 
tween the parties by such compensation; and, lastly, the 
repentance itself of the offending party (Bosworth’s Anglo- 
Saxon Dictionary, in loco). Through Christ, the believer 
“receives the atonement:” namely, that expiation for sin 
which settles the difference between God and man. The re- 
sult is reconciliation and harmony between the two parties. 
eAaBouev| If the sinner himself made this expiation, he would 
not “receive” it, but would give it. This would be personal 
atonement. He cannot make it himself; and it is graciously 
made for him. This is vicarious atonement, which he “ac- 
cepts” and “receives,” by faith. 


Verses 12-21 describe the parallel between the condemna- 
tion in Adam, and the justification in Christ. Verses 12, 18, 
19 contain the substance of the parallel, namely, the protasis 


120 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


12 X la er Si5 EREN, > 9. , e e , > 
Aida tovtTo wotrep Si’ Evos avIpwrov n apaptia eis 
io) fo! 3 e 
Tov Kocpov eianrdev, cal dia THs auaptias o IdvaTos, Kal 
cs Behe 


and apodosis of the proposition. Verses 13-17 are paren- 
thetic and explanatory. Verses 20, 21 exhibit the relation 
of the Sinaitic law to the justification in Christ. 


Ver. 12. dca todro] a conclusion from the whole previous 
reasoning respecting gratuitous justification. dovep, etc. ] has 
no correlative clause regularly expressed. Some, like Tholuck, 
regard the clause és éorw tvmos Tod weAAovTos as a substitute 
for it. But it is simplest to regard the clause introduced by 
aomep as suspended by the parenthetic explanation, and then 
repeated in verse 18, where the és finds its correlative in 
ottws, Oo évos dvIpwrov| through one man, in distinction 
from a multitude of individuals. In 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Tim. 4. 
13, 14 (compare Sirach xxv. 24), Eve is joined with Adam in 
the first transgression; as she is, also, in the narrative in 
Genesis. Hence cis dvJpwros, here, stands for both Adam 
and Eve, including their posterity. The two, as taken to- 
gether, are denominated “man,” in Gen. v. 2: ‘God called 
their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Simi- 
larly, Hosea vi. 7: “They, like men (marg. Adam) have trans- 
gressed.” In 1 Cor. xv. 22, the article is employed, in order 
to denote the species as male and female: ‘In Adam (ro 
“Adan) all die.” In Rom. vii. 1, the “man” includes the 
woman, as verse 2 shows. Compare Mat. xii. 12; 1 John iii. 
15; Coloss. i. 2. St. Paul does not mean that sin entered 
into the world by Adam exclusive of Eve: by the man, in 
distinction from the woman. He employs the term “man” 
as it is employed in Gen. vy. 2, to denote the human species 
which God created bi-sexual, in two individuals, “male and 
female.” The work of creating “man” was not finished 
until Eve had been created; and the apostasy of “‘man” was 


CHAPTER V. 12. 121 


not complete until Adam as well as Eve had eaten of the tree 
of knowledge. Augustine (De Civitate, xv. 17) notices this 
use of the term “man.” ‘“ Enos (wiz) signifies ‘man’ not 
as Adam does, which also signifies man but is used in He- 
brew indifferently for man and woman; as it is written, 
‘male and female created he them, and blessed them, and 
called their name Adam’ (Gen. v. 2), leaving no room to 
doubt that though the woman was distinctively called Eve, 
yet the name Adam, meaning man, was common to both. 
But Enos means man in so restricted a sense, that Hebrew 
linguists tell us it cannot be applied to woman.” Compare 
the use of dyJpwros and évip in the Greek language. In 
accordance with this, Augustine (De Civitate, xi. 12) calls 
Adam and Eve primos homines. The Formula Concordize 
(Hase, p. 643) expressly mentions both individuals as con- 
cerned in the apostasy: “In Adamo et Heva, natura initio 
pura, bona, et sancta, creata est: tamen, per lapsum, pecca- 
tum ipsorum naturam invasit.” De Moore in Marckium 
(Caput xv. § 10) remarks respecting Paul’s statement in 
1 Tim. ii. 14: “‘ Nec negat ab altera parte apostolus mulieris 
peccatum, cum wrwm hominem, quem ceu tvrov Tod péAXovTOS 
Christo opponit, peccati propagati auctorem, in quo pecca- 
vimus et morimur omnes, esse docet, quem expresse quoque 
Adamum vocat: coll. Rom. v. 12-19 cum 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22.” 
De Moore (xv. § 10) also cites Pareus, as making Adam to 
include Eve, by community of nature, and by the fact that 
husband and wife are one flesh (Gen. ii. 24). Witsius 
(Covenants, II. iv. 11) approvingly quotes Cloppenburg as 
saying, that “the apostle Paul in Rom. v. 12 did not so 
understand one man Adam as to exclude Eve: which is here 
the error of some.” 7 dyapria] original sin (Calvin); the 
sinful habitus (Olshausen); the principle of sin (De Wette, 
Meyer, Philippi). The latter is preferable. Compare v. 21; 
vi. 12, 14; vii. 8,9, 17. xécpoy] the human world; it had 
6 


122 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


o’Tws eis mavtas avdIpwrouvs 0 Jdavatos SuprJev, ef @ 
,! 4 ; 
TUVTES I}LapToV * 


previously entered the angelic world by the fall of Satan 
and his angels. Javaros| supply «is tov Koopoy cionddJer. 
Both physical and spiritual death is meant. That it is 
physical, is plain from v. 14; Gen. i. 19; that it is spiritu- 
al, is evident from Rom. v. 18, 21, 23, where wy is the con- 
trary of Javaros, and from 2 Tim. 1. 10, where the same con- 
trast appears. Chrysostom, Augustine, and Meyer confine 
the term to physical death. Pelagius confined it to spiritual 
death. De Wette, Tholuck, Olshausen, Philippi, Lange, 
Alford, Stuart, and Hodge regard it as including physical and 
spiritual death. Death is stated to be the penalty of sin, in 
Gen. ii. 17; Ezek. xviii.4; Rom. vi. 23; vii. 13. From Gen. 
ii. 17; ii. 22 the inference is, that man’s body would have 
been immortal in case he had not sinned; he would have 
been permitted “to eat of the tree of life, and live forever.” 
Compare Rev. ii. 7. otrws] ‘‘consequently:” death is an 
effect, of which sin is the cause. avras advIpu7ovs| denotes 
universality: it is equivalent to the antecedent xdopor, 
djAJev| corresponds to eiopAJev: sin entered im, and death 
passed through. é' o] is equivalent to émi rovro dre = dirt, 
2 Cor. v. 4; Phil. 11. 12; iv. 10. It mentions a reason, with 
particularity: “for thé¢reason that.” The patristic render- 
ing, which makes it equivalent to év @, in quo (Aug., Pelag., 
Beza, Owen), is incorrect, because: 1. the preposition ézt 
will not bear it; and 2. the supposed antecedent, évds avJpw- 
mov, is too remote, zdvres| all without exception, infants 
included, as verse 14 teaches. aprov| mentions the par- 
ticular reason why all men died: viz., because all men sinned. 
jpaprov is a verb active, and has an active signification (Aug., 
Beza, Owen, Edwards, Olshausen, Fritzsche, Tholuck, De 
Wette, Meyer, Philippi, Haldane). This is proved: 1. by 


CHAPTER V. 12. 123 


the uniform use, in the New Testament, of the verb dpapra- 
veiy, Mat. xxvii. 4; Luke xv. 18; John ix. 2; Acts xxv. 8; 
amie £2: ii, 23% vs 14,16; vi. 15;.1 Cor. vi..28; Eph. 
feeeoepbe tim. v. 20; Tit. iii. 11; Heb. x..26; 1, Pet. 1. 20; 
1 John i. 10; 2. by the uniform signification of the sub- 
stantive duaptia, Rom. vy. 12, 13, 14, 15 et passim; 3. by the 
interchange of zapattwya with dpapria, v. 16-21; vi. 1, 
13; 4. by the fact, that the clause éf © wavtes jpaptov ex- 
plains the clause da tis dmaprias, in the preceding context. 
“The meanings, ‘peccati poenam subire’ (Grotius), or ‘ pec- 
catores facti sunt’ (Melanch.), do not at all belong to jjpap- 
7vov. The word cannot mean: ‘became sinful, or: ‘were 


sinful, for éuapraveiv is not == dpaptwhov yiyverJa,, or «iva. 
Still less does it mean: ‘bore the penalty of sin.’ Rather 

y y > 
npaptov is nothing but = sinned.” Philippi, in loco. The 


force of the aorist is to be retained. A particular historical _ 
event is intended: “all sinned, when sin entered into the 
world by one man.” See comment on ili, 23. “Hyaprov, then, 
denotes, in this place, the first sin of Adam. This is proved 
by the succeeding explanatory context, verses 15-19, in 
which it is reiterated five times in succession, that one, and 
only one sin is the cause of the death that befalls all men. 
Compare 1 Cor. xv. 22. Accordingly, seme commentators 
supply ev “Adcp, after juaprov (Bengel, Olshausen, Koppe, 
Meyer, Philippi, Delitzsch), suggested by évés évJowzov (vy. 
12), and by *Addp (bis) in verse 14. And that large class of 
exegetes who explain the clause by the Adamic union, vir- 
‘ain supply év “Addp. 

The explanation of Pelagius, aa cored by De Wethe 
Fritzsche, Tholuck, Baur, Stuart, that 7aprov denotes the 
actual sin of each individual subsequent to birth, is con- 
tradicted: 1. by Rom. vy. 14, in which it is asserted that 
certain persons who are a part of zavres, the subject of 
jpaptov, and who suffer the death which is the penalty of © 


134 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


sin, did not commit sins resembling Adam’s first sin: i. e., 
individual and conscious transgressions; and, 2. by v. 15— 
19, in which it is asserted, repeatedly, that only one sin, 
and not millions of sins, is the cause of the death of all men. 
If St. Paul had intended to teach that death passes upon all 
men, because of their multiplied repetition of Adam’s first 
sin, he would have written é¢’ © mavres dpapravovew,—employ- 
ing the present tense, to denote something continually go- 
ing on. 

A qualified and passive signification has been given to 
ypaptrov, by commentators who differ from each other in their 
exegesis of the passage, as well as in their general dog- 
matic position: 1. ‘became sinful:” Calvin (pravitatem 
ingenitam et hereditariam), Melanchthon, Flatt. 2. “were 
accounted to have sinned:” Chrysostom (yeyévacw rap’ éxeivov 
mwavtes Ivntoi), Theodore Mops., Theophylact, Grotius (fre- 
quens est Hebrieis dicere peccare pro poenam subire), Lim- 
borch, Locke, Whitby, Wahl, Bretschneider, John Taylor, 
Macknight, Hodge. The objections to the passive significa- 
tion of jpaprov, in either of these forms, are the following: 
1. It is contrary to uniform usage in the New Testament, 
and is particularly incompatible with the meaning of dpapria, 
in the clause 6a rs duaptias which it explains. If this inter- 
pretation be correct, it is the only instance in Scripture in 
which this active verb, in the active voice, has a passive sig- 
nification. Passages cited from the Old Testament, in sup- 
port of the signification “to account to have sinned,” are 
Gen. xlili, 9; xliv. 32, where "mxon is translated by the 
Seventy japtrykds érouar (“1 shall bear the blame,” Eng. 
Ver.); and 1 Kings i. 21, évopeda duaprokou (“ We shall be 
counted offenders,’ Eng. Ver.). But, if St. Paul had in- 
tended to teach, in Rom. v. 12, that all men were regarded 
or reckoned as sinners, he would have adopted the same 
complex form of the verb, and have written é¢’ @ mavtes jpap- 


CHAPTER V. 12 195 


mkores Hoav. 2. This passive signification excludes Adam 
(i.e., Adam and Eve) from the wavres who “sinned.” Death, 
certainly, did not pass upon the first pair, the ‘one man,” 
because they were reckoned to be sinners. And, since the 
mavres who sinned are identical with the xoopov into which 
sin entered, this interpretation of japrov also excludes Adam 
from the “ world:” thus destroying the unity of Adam and 
his posterity. 3. The passive signification makes myaprov to 
denote God’s action, and not man’s. It designates only the 
treatment, or estimate, which men receive from God, and not 
an act of their own. But an act of God would not be a 
proper ground for the infliction of punishment upon man, or 
angel. The clause é¢’ © waves jyapror is introduced to justi- 
fy the infliction of death, temporal and eternal, upon all men. 
But it makes such an infliction more inexplicable, rather than 
less so, to say that it is visited upon those who did not’ com- 
mit the sin that caused the death, but were fictitiously and 
gratuitously regarded as if they had. 4. The passive signifi- 
cation, if given to japror, destroys the logical force of the 
passage in its connection, because it amounts only to the prop- 
osition: All men die, for the reason that they are reckoned 
to deserve death. This is one reason for death, but not the 
reason that is required by the nature of St. Paul’s argument. 
This demands a reason founded upon the act of the crimié- 
nal, and not of the judge. 5. The passive signification 
tends to evacuate Jdvaros of its plenary biblical signification. 
If the sin in question is only hypothetical and putative, then 
it is natural to infer that the punishment inflicted on account 
of it should be mitigated and moderate. Hence, of those 
who hold that Adam’s posterity were “reckoned” to have 
sinned in him, but really did not, a portion deny altogether, 
that penalty properly so called is inflicted upon the posterity 
for Adam’s sin; while another portion teach that only the 
privative part of the penalty denominated Javaros falls upon 


126 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


the posterity considered merely as descendants of Adam,— 
the positive part of it being visited only upon the actual 
transgressions of the individual. The latter class hold, that 
because of the first sin of Adam, the Holy Spirit is with- 
drawn from every individual man at birth; but the pains of 
hell, the positive part of the penalty of sin, they assert, are 
not inflicted upon the ground of Adam’s first sin, but of sub- 
sequent individual action. But Rom. v. 14 teaches that 
Javaros, in the same plenary signification that it has through- 
out the chapter, comes upon those “that had not sinned after 
the similitude of Adam’s transgression.” Adam’s first sin, 
even without actual transgression, according to St. Paul, 
merits death, physical, spiritual, and eternal. 

Historically, the passive signification, in its second form, 
was first forced upon jyaptov by those who denied that Adam’s 
first sin was immediately and literally imputed to his posteri- 
ty, and that original sin is truly and properly sin. Compare 
Chrysostom on Rom. v.12 sq. The Semi-Pelagian and Armi- 
nian exegetes, generally, explain 7japrov, in this place, in the 
sense of ‘‘peccati poenam subire.” ‘The lexicographers Wahl 
and Bretschneider have given currency to this explanation. 
Exegetes like De Wette and Meyer, though doctrinally fav- 
oring the Semi-Pelagian view of original sin, are prevented 
by philological considerations from giving this signification 
to jmaprtov. 

This signification of jyaproy is defended by a reference 
to the parallelism in v. 12-19. Men, it is argued, are con- 
fessedly justified by the righteousness of Christ without 
any merit of their own, and hence it follows that they 
are condemned by Adam’s sin without any demerit of their 
own (Hodge, in loco). The answer to this is: 1. St. Paul 
teaches that the parallel between Adam and Christ does not 
hold in every particular, v. 15-17. 2. If it holds in reference 
to the particular under consideration, then as justification in 


CHAPTER V. 12. 127 


Christ is described as “gratuitous” (dwpeav), and “ without 
works” (xwpis épywv), condemnation in Adam must be de- 
scribed in the same manner. See the comment on iv. 3. 
But the doctrine that the posterity of Adam are gratuitous- 
ly condemned would be both absurd and impious. 3, The 
gratuitous imputation of sin, by which the sin of his people 
was reckoned to Christ, and “‘ He who knew no sin was made 
to be sin,” 2 Cor. v. 21, was for the purpose of expiating sin. 
This is totally different from the imputation of Adam’s sin 
to his posterity, which has nothing to do with the vicarious 
atonement for sin. Christ was charged with a sin that he 
did not participate in, or commit, in order that he might 
come under the reatus without the culpa peceati, the pun- 
ishment without the guilt. Hence, this gratuitous imputa- 
tion of sin to the Redeemer cannot be cited to prove that 
there is also a gratuitous imputation of sin to the race of 
mankind. Sin is charged to them in order to its personal 
punishment, and not its vicarious atonement. ‘There is 
nothing in this locus classicus respecting Adam’s sin, that 
implies that the connection between dpapria and Javaros is 
any other than the common ethical connection between real 
guilt and merited punishment: between culpa and reatus. 
Unless there is culpa there is no reatus, for the human race. 
All men die for the first sin, because all men committed the 
first sin; or, in St. Paul’s words, “all die, because all sinned.” 

The doctrine of the imputation of the first sin to all men, 
and of their punishment therefor, rests upon the doctrine of 
the natural and substantial unity of Adam and his posterity 
in the first act of sin. This doctrine of the Adamic unity is 
taught in the Old Testament, Gen. v. 2; Job xxxi. 33; Hosea 
vi. 7. It passed from the Old Testament into the Jewish 
theology, 2 Hsdras iii. 7, 21; vii. 11, 46, 48; ix. 19; Wis- 
dom 11. 23, 24; Sirach xxv. 32. The Rabbins (excepting the 
Cabalists, who were emanationists, and referred evil to God) 


128 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


referred the origin of sin to Adam. See, especially, Wolfius, 
ad Rom. v. 12; also Wetstein, Olshausen, Tholuck, Meyer, 
and Philippi, on Rom. v. 12 sq. The Chaldee paraphrase on 
Ruth iv. 22 is as follows: ‘‘ Because Eve ate the forbidden 
fruit, all the inhabitants of the earth are subject to death.” 
The doctrine of the Adamic unity, thus dimly revealed in 
the Old Testament, was confirmed and more fully developed 
by St. Paul, as the Logos-doctrine, which also appears dimly 
in the Old Testament and passed into the Jewish theology, 
was by St. John: the former dogma being the key to anthro- 
pology, and the latter to trinitarianism. Christ hints at the 
doctrine in John viii. 44, where he denominates Satan avJpw- 
moxtovos, “a slayer of mankind.” Compare Acts xvii. 26, 
where God is said to have made all nations of men é& évos 
aiyatos (SBA Vulg., Lachm., Tisch., omit aijaros). 

In constructing a dogmatic scheme that shall agree with 
the exegesis of St. Paul’s teaching respecting the origin of 
sin, in man, and its imputation, some method must be 
adopted, by which, without logical contradiction, though not 
without a mystery, it can be made to appear that all men 
can act en masse, and at once, and commit that ‘one of- 
fence” against the probationary statute of which the apostle 
speaks, There are only two methods: 1. that of real. exist- 
ence in Adam; 2. that of representation by Adam. The 
elder Calvinism followed Augustinianism, in adopting the 
former; the later Calvinism has favored the latter. 

The following extracts from the commentary of Pareus 
upon Rom. v. exhibit the views of the elder Calvinism (and 
Lutheranism also), respecting the union of Adam and his 
posterity, and the imputation of the first sin. “ Assumptio 
apostoli consideratione indiget, qaomodo omnes peccaverint. 
Loquitur haud dubie de peccato illo primo, per quod mors 
transiit ad omnes. Non (inquit) ita fuit unius, quin et om- 
nium fuerit. In uno, omnes illud admiserunt: alioqui mors 


CHAPTER V. 12. 129 


in omnes transire non potuisset. Qui enim non peccant, hoc 
est nulla culpa et reatu tenentur, ut sancti angeli, in eos 
mors nil juris habet. Quia vero mors in omnes transiit, 
omnes igitur peccaverunt, hoc est culpa et reatu tenentur. 
Hoe est, enim, peccare apostolo: omnes, inquam, non adulti 
tantum, sed et parvuli.” Pareus explains how all sinned in 
one man, as follows: 1. “ Participatione culpw, quia omnes 
posteri seminali ratione fuerunt in lumbis Adami. Ibi, igi- 
tur, omnes in Adamo peccante peccaverunt: sicut Abraham 
in lumbis Levi dicitur decimatus. Et liberi sunt pars paren- 
tum. Culpa, igitur, parentum participatione est liberorum. 
2. Imputatione reatus, quia primus homo ita stabat in gra- 
tia, ut si peccavet, non ipse solus, sed tota posteritas ea exci- 
deret, reaque cum ipso fieret zternz mortis, juxta intermi- 
nationem: morte morieris: nempe, tu cum tua sobole et 
posteritate: sicut feuda tali conditione dantur vasallis, ut si 
ea per culpam perdant parentes, parentum reatu involvantur 
et liberi. Atque hoc est, quod primum Adz peceatum nobis 
imputari dicitur. 3. Naturali denique propagatione seu 
generatione, horribilis naturze deformitas cum tristi reatu in 
omnes posteros sese diffudit. Nam qualis Adam post lap- 
sum fuit, tales filios genuit: unde dicitur genuisse filimm ad 
imaginem suam. Sic tria sunt in peccato originis: partici- 
patio culpze, imputatio reatus, et propagatio naturalis pra- 
vitatis. 

Peccatum originale dicitur ambigue, tam peccatum origi- 
nans, hoc est, primum peccatum Adami qua fuit personalis . 
transgressio, quam peccatum originatum, qua idem pecca- 
tum Adami fuit totius generis humani prevaricatio. Utro- 
que sensu, peccatum originale, tam in Adamo quam in poste- 
ris, tria lethifera mala includit: culpam actualem ; reatwun 
legalem seu mortis poenam; et pravitatem habitualem seu 
deformitatem nature. Hee enim, simul in parente et poste- 
ris, cirea peceatum primum concurrerunt: eo solum discrimi- 


130 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


natione, quod Adam peccans fuit principale agens, admittens 
culpam, promerens reatum, abjiciens imaginem dei, seque 
depravens; posterorum hee omnia sunt participatione, impu- 
tatione, et generatione ex vitioso parente. Sic frustra dis- 
putatum est a Sophistis, an peccatum originale sit culpa 
prima, an tantum reatus, an tantum morbus, vel macula, vel 
labes, vel vitium nature. Est enim hee omnia.” See, also, 
the extract from Turretine, in the comment on iy. 3. 

The following particulars are noteworthy, in this state- 
ment of Pareus: 1. The imputation of Adam’s sin rests upon 
participation, as its first ground and cause. The later Cal- 
vinism, in some of its representatives, has departed from this 
position, by throwing out participation, entirely, and making 
the sole ground of imputation to be the sovereign will of 
God. 2. To sin in Adam-:means, to incur both guilt and lia- 
bility to punishment: ‘‘omnes peccaverunt: hoc est culpa et 
reatu tenentur” (Pareus). The later Calvinism, in some in- 
stances, has departed from the elder, by explaining the guilt 
of Adam’s sin to be merely veatus without ewlpa. This mod- 
ification of the earlier view burdens the problem of original 
sin with grave difficulties of an ethical nature; because it 
implies that sin and guilt, precisely like righteousness and 
innocence, may be imputed gratuitously, by an act of sover- 
eignty. 


Verses 13 and 14 are parenthetical, and explain the state- 
ment in verse 12, that all men sinned that one sin of “one 
man,” which brought the penalty of death upon all men. 
Such an extraordinary statement as this requires explana- 
tion; but the statement that death passes upon all men be- 
cause of their many individual transgressions, would require 
no explanation at all. 


Ver. 13. axpe yap vouov| St. Paul first shows, that the sin 
meant in the clause wavres jpaprov, is not one that was com- 


CHAPTER V. 13. 13h 


3 ape yap vouov duaptia hv ev Koou@, awaptia é 
oun €NNoyetTar p1) OvTOs vopwouv. “ adrAa é€BacirevoeV oO 


mitted against the Mosaic law. Sin was in the world prior 
to the decalogue: the fact of death previous to the time of 
Moses proves this. All violations of the decalogue must, 
therefore, be excluded from the account, when looking for 
the particular sin that brought death into the world of man- 
kind. jv] “was, that is, really was, or truly existed; not, 
‘was counted,’ as if Adam’s posterity had his sin counted to 
them, though it was not really theirs. It was their sin, as 
truly as it was that of Adam, otherwise the justice of God 
would not have required that they should suffer for it.” 
Haldane, in loco. dpapria d€ . . . vouov] Sin necessarily sup- 
poses a law against which it is committed. Although the 
decalogue was not yet promulgated, there must, neverthe- 
less, have been some law of some kind against which zavres 
npaprov; otherwise sin could not have been charged to them. 
Compare iv. 15. éAdoyetrar| ‘put into the account,” for pun- 
ishment, i. e. See Philemon, 18, for the meaning of the 
word, 


Ver. 14 is an explanatory clause, introduced by éAAa, the 
object of which is, to prevent the reader from inferring from 
the statement that ‘sin is not imputed when there is no 
law,” that individual transgressions against the wnwritten 
law are intended in the clause, “sin was in the world.” 
This is the actual inference of some commentators. Wolfius 
(in loco) so interprets: “‘regnavit mors ab Adamo usque ad 
Mosen, ac proinde necesse est, primum, hominibus imputa- 
tum fuisse, deinde vero etiam legem aliquam fuisse, nempe 
naturalem illam, de qua cap. 1. & ii.” The apostle prohibits 
this explanation, by mentioning a class of persons who did 
not sin against the unwritten law, who, nevertheless, suffer 


132 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Sdvatos amo "Adam péxpt Mavoéws nal emt rods pi) 
dpaptncavtas él TO Opowwmpate THs TmapaBdcews ’ Addy, 


the penalty of death. dda] Winer (p. 442) remarks, that 
GAXG is used when a train of thought is interrupted by a cor- 
rection, or explanation, and is equivalent to “yet,” or “ how- 
ever.” “ But although” sin is not imputed when there is 
no law, “‘ yet death,” etc. ¢Bacirevoev| denotes the despotic 
sway of sin. dd “Adap péxpt Mwvoéws| the ante-Mosaic period. 
xat| whether rendered “ even,” or “also,” implies that it would 
not have been expected that death should reign over the class 
of persons spoken of, and that their case is the difficult one 
to explain. The implication also is, that if these persons 
had sinned “after the similitude of Adam’s transgression,” 
it would not have been strange that they should die. ovs 
pi) Gpaprycavras| viz.: infants (Augustine, Aquinas, Melanch., 
Beza, Pareus, Owen, Justification, Chap. xviii, Edwards, 
Original Sin, Ch. iv., § 2). Respecting these persons, three 
facts are incontestable: 1. they constitute a part of the way- 
tes of verse 12, and therefore sinned; 2. they must have been 
under a Jaw of some kind, or sin could not have been imputed 
to them (verse 13); and 3. they die (verse14). émt 7@ opow- 
part... Addu] B reads & 7d dpouspart, én signifies, 
“‘after:” used of the rule, or model, Luke i. 59 (Winer, 
p-. 394).  dyouwpate is emphatic, in the clause. It signifies 
“shape,” or “form:” Rom. i, 23; viii. 3; Phil 1% ew 
ix. 7. These persons, says the writer, did not commit a sin 
resembling (of the same shape, or form, with) the sin that 
brought death upon all men. A sin resembling Adam’s first 
sin would have been a particular act of transgression, either 
of the written, or the unwritten law. This kind of sin, the - 
apostle asserts, these persons had not committed. Neither 
the law of conscience, nor the decalogue, is the law which 
they transgressed, when, as part of the wavres, they “sinned.” 


CHAPTER V. 14. laa 


The sin, consequently, which the apostle has in mind is 
Adam’s first sin itself; and the law which these persons 
transgressed, and without which sin could not be imputed to 
them, was the command: ‘Thou shalt not eat of the tree of 
the knowledge of good and evil,” Gen. ii. 17. This class of 
persons sinned, then, not after the similitude of Adam’s 
transgression, by violating the unwritten law, but they 
sinned the very same sin itself, by transgressing the Eden 
statute. The relation between their sin and Adam’s is not 
that of resemblance, but of tdentity. Had the sin by which 
death came upon them been one like Adam’s, there would 
have been as many sins to be the cause of death, and to ac- 
count for it, as there were individuals. Death would have 
come into the human world by millions of men, and not “ by 
one man” (ver. 12); and judgment would have come upon 
all men, to condemnation, by millions of offences, and not 
“by one offence ” (ver. 18). 

The object, then, of the parenthetical digression in yerses 
13 and 14 is to prevent the reader from supposing from the 


statement that “‘all men sinned” (‘have sinned:” 


Eng. 
Ver.), that the individual transgressions of all men are 
meant, and to make it clear that only the one first sin of the 
one first man is intended. In order to this, the apostle be- 
gins by remarking that the existence of sin does not depend 
upon the Mosaic law; and yet it depends upon the existence 
of some law or other. The only other laws conceivable in 
the case, are the unwritten law previously spoken of by the 
apostle (ii. 14, 15), and the commandment given in Eden 
(Gen. ii. 16, 17). The former of these, rather than the lat- 
ter, would most naturally come into the mind of the reader, 
and he might explain the -proposition that ‘all men have 
sinned,” by reference to the unwritten law. The apostle 
precludes this explanation, by the statement that some who 
are included in the zavres did not violate the unwritten law, 


134 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


by a transgression similar to that of Adam. And yet they 
die, as all other persons do. Death supposes sin, and sin 
supposes a law. ‘They must, therefore, have committed a 
sin of some kind, against a law of some kind. The Mosaic 
law and the law of conscience have been ruled out of thie 
case. These persons must, therefore, have sinned against 
the commandment in Eden, the probationary statute; and 
their sin was not similar (opows) to Adam’s, but Adam’s 
identical sin: the very same sin, numerically, of the “one 
man.” They did not sin “ke Adam; but they “sinned in 
him, and fell 2eéth him in that first transgression” (West- 
minster Larger Catechism, 22). 

St. Paul, in this verse, alludes to adults between Adam 
and Moses only by implication, and not directly: «at implies 
that there were some between Adam and Moses who had 
sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression (viz.: 
adults); but the penalty of death which they suffer is not 
founded upon their actual and individual transgressions, but 
upon the one sin of the one man, If responsibility for the 
first sin is established in the case of infants, it is established 
for adults; for all adults were once infants. vos] anar- 
throus: “@ type.” The word denotes a copy taken by im- 
pressing a seal, John xx. 25. Adam, by reason of his unity 
with his posterity, is a type of Christ who is one with his 
people. The two unities are alike in some particulars, but 
not in all; as the following verses show. “This passage 
clearly represents the human race, not only with respect to its 
physical and mental but also its spiritual powers, as wrapped 
up in Adam; inasmuch as sin, not merely as a corruption of 
body and soul, but as an apostasy of the spirit from God and 
rebellion of the will against his commandment, is expressly 
traced back to Adam’s fall.” Philippi, on Rom. v. 13, 14. 


Verses 15-17 exhibit the dissimilarity between the con- 


CHAPTER V. 15. £35 


la) \ 
8s éori TUTOs ToD wéNAOVTOS. * GAN OvY WS TO TapaT- 
TWLA, OUTWS KAL TO Yapiopa. El YAP TM TOD EVOS TrapaTr- 
T@MATL OL TOANOL aTéJavoY, TOAA® paAroV 1) Yapis Tod 


demnation in Adam and the justification in Christ. The 
writer is led to this, by the remark that Adam is the type of 
Christ. See Owen on Justification, Ch. xviii.; Howe’s Ora- 
cles of God, Lecture xxi. ‘ 


Ver. 15. dAd’] has the same force as in verse 14: “But 
although Adam is a type of him who is to come, yeé not as 
the offence, so, etc.” 1d raparrwpa| se. éove: the sin of the 
one man; the single special-instance of éwaptia spoken of in 
verse 12. 70 xdpwpa| sc. éore: the gift of righteousness 
mentioned in i. 21; iv. 5. «i dwéJavov| the indicative de- 
notes an actual instance: “if, as is the fact.” od évds] viz.: 
Adam and Eye, including their posterity, as in verse 12. of 
moA\Xoi| is put for the zavres of verse 12, for the sake of anti- 
thesis with rod évds. améJavov| became subject to the Javaros 
mentioned in verse 12. 7oAA@G paddrov éexepicaevoey| Compare 
v. 10; James ii. 13; Isa. lv. 7% If God exhibited exact jus- 
tice, in punishing all men without exception, infants in- 
cluded, for that first sin which all men, infants included, 
committed, he has exhibited great mercy in the extraordi- 
nary method of gratuitous justification. The justice in the 
former case is apparent, because it is xara ra epya; but the 
mercy in the latter case is still more apparent, because it is 
entirely xwpis épywv. Adam’s sin is the act of Adam and his 
posterity together. Hence, the imputation to the posterity 
is just and merited. Christ’s obedience is the work of Christ 
alone. Hence, the imputation of it to the elect is gracious 
and unmerited. The latter imputation is for nothing (dwpear). 
The former is for something. The difference between the 
merited condemnation, and the unmerited justification is that 


136 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Jeod Kai 7 Swped ev yapite TH Tod évds avIpwrrov *Inaod 
Xpicrod eis Tovs ToANovs errepiagevcev. * Kal ovy ws SL 
EOS GuapTHaayTOS TO SHpnua* TO ev yap Kpiwa €E Eévds Eis 


of degree, or quality: “where sin abounded, grace super- 
abounded,” v. 20. 7 xdpis] the principle itself, of compas- 
sion in the divine mind. 7 dwpea] sc. Jeod. the effect of the 
principle. év xdpure . . . Xpiorod] this clause qualifies émepic- 
cevoev (Meyer), and not dwped (Tholuck, Eng. Ver.); because 
the article is not repeated after dwped, and because év yapurt, 
etc., is the correlate in the apodosis to 7@ tapamrwpare in the 
protasis. tovs zoAAovs| is not of equal extent with of woAdot 
in the first clause, because other passages teach that “the 
many” who die in Adam are not co-terminous with “the 
many” who live in Christ; Compare Mat. xxv. 46.  émepio- 
cevoev| denotes an ample and overflowing abundance. Com- 
pare Eph. i. 8; Rom. iii. 7. The aorist indicates an accom- 
plished fact in the past. 


Ver. 16. The differentiating of the condemnation and the 
justification is continued, and a numerical difference is now 
noticed. Condemnation results from one offence; justifica- 
tion delivers from many offences. The dissimilarity here 
relates to quantity. kal odx ds] supply 70 Kpipa éoriv, sug- 
gested by xpiva in the succeeding clause. 70 ddépnya] (i. e., 
ovTws Kat éotiv TO Sopyua) means the same as TO xdpiopa, in 
verse 15. The former denotes the gratuitous righteousness 
as an object; the latter denotes it in its subjective reference 
to compassion (xapis) in God. 76 xptwa] se. éoriv; the judi- 
cial sentence, or verdict, after the examination and trial. 
évos| supply rapaxrwparos, suggested by rapartwpdrey in the 
succeeding clause. is xardxpysa] defines the intention and 
result of the sentence as a condemning one: a verdict (xpipa) 
might be one of acquittal, if the examination and trial of the 


CHAPTER V. 1%. bls. 


kaTaxpiua, TO O€ Xaptowa eK TOAABY TapaTTwp_dTwY «is 
Sixaiopa. "ei yap TO Tod évds TapaTT@pati 0 Javatos 
éBacinrevoer bia TOV Evds, TOANG padXov Ot THY TEpLaceElav 
THS YaptTos Kai Ths Swpeds THs Sixavocvvyns AauPRavorTes 


év San Bacidevcovow bia Tov évds, "Incov Xpiotod. “ dpa 


person so resulted. yapirpa] sc. éotiv, moAAGv Tapartwpatuv | 
denotes the first sin, and all the sins that result from it: both 
original sin, and actual transgression. The condemnation in 
Adam relates to one sin only; the justification in Christ re- 
lates to that sin and millions of sins besides. dicatwua] is the 
contrary of xataxpya, and denotes justification as a declara- 
tive act of God (Fritzsche, Meyer). Compare i. 323; ii. 26; 
vil. 4. Luther and Tholuck say that it denotes the subjec- 
tive state of justification. 


Ver. 17. A further enforcement and explanation of verse 
16, introduced by yap. rod évds| sc. avIpdrov: the same as 
in verse 12. Codices AFG read & évi wapartwopart. dua Tod 
évos| is repeated for the sake of emphasis. Compare 2 Cor. 
xii. 7. moAA@ padAov] qualifies BaowWeticovow, and relates to 
certainty, not to quantity (Chrysostom). ‘The issues of a 
divine act working salvation are much more sure, than the 
issues of a hwman act working ruin.” Philippi in loco. If 
the union with Adam in his sin was certain to bring destruc- 
tion, the union with Christ in his righteousness is yet more 
certain to bring salvation. ot AayPavovres| the participle for 
a substantive: “the recipients.” Compare Mat.ii. 20.  zepuc- 
oeav| is used with reference to émipicoeveev in verse 15. Com- 
pare il. 4. xapiros and dwpeads] are distinguished from each 
other as in verse 15. B omits ris dwpeds. ris duxaxoovvys] the 
article denotes that gratuitous righteousness which has been 
so fully described. ¢wy| eternal life, the contrary of the 


Javaros mentioned in verse 12... 
6* 


138 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


gS e 9 ni @ueX , ? / > if; >’ 

ovv ws du évos TapaTT@patos eis TdvTas avIpwrfous Eis 
s ‘ 5) : 

KaTdKkpliwa, ovTws Kal dv évds StKalmpatos eis TaVTAS 


Ver. 18 resumes the parallel between Adam and Christ, 
which was commenced in verse 12, but interrupted by the 
explanatory parenthesis in verses 13-17. dpa ovv| “ accord- 
ingly then;” a very frequent phrase in the Pauline epistles. 
Compare vu. 3, 25; vill. 12; ix.16, 18; xiv 1250p eee 
contrary to pure Greek usage, at the beginning of a prop- 
osition (Meyer). s] corresponds to @ozep in verse 12. 
évos] is better rendered in the neuter with zaparrdépatos. 
Were it masculine, the article would have preceded it, as in 
verses 15 and 17 (Meyer). The masculine without the arti- 
cle, but with the substantive dvJpwrov, is used in verse 12. 
It is, however, regarded as masculine by the Vulgate, Eng. 
Ver., Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Tholuck; and this 
view is favored by the antithesis wdvras dvJIpwrous. The el- 
liptical words in the first clause are 70 kpipa 7AIe (HATev sug- 
gested by dAIev in verse 12); and in the second clause, 70 
xXapiopa AASev. mavtas dvIpwrovs| the same as in verse 12. 
cis xatdaxpysa| denotes the tendency and result of the judicial 
sentence (xpiua). évds] as in the preceding clause, is to be 
rendered in the neuter. dixawwparos] denotes, here, the act 
of justification, considered as a decision or declaration of 
God, as in i. 32; v. 16. It is correlated to diKxaiwow. It is 
sometimes employed in a subjective sense, to denote right- 
eousness itself, as in Rev. xix. 8. mdévtas dvIowrovs] i. e., all 
ot AapBavovres, of verse 17. The meaning of zavres, equally 
with that of wodAo/, must be determined by the context. 
Compare xi. 32; 1 Cor. xv. 22. The efficacy of Christ’s 
atonement is no more extensive than faith; and faith is not 
universal (2 Thess. iii. 2). dixafwow] the state and condition 
of justification, in which the person is pronounced complete 
before the law, both in respect to penalty and precept. See 


CHAPTER V. 19. 139 


dvSperous eis Sixaiwow fons:  domep yap dua Tijs 


a ee BEE EN. BJ 9. A id a 19: Le 
TAPAKONS TOV €VOS AV-SPWTTOU apapTwNot KATEOTAINOAV Ol 


the explanation of dikauos, in verse 19. fuys] the genitive of 
quality; or, perhaps, of apposition: “justification which is 
life.” 


Ver. 19 merely repeats, in corroboration, the statement in 
verse 18. dozep| instead of as (ver. 18), is the same form 
employed in verse 12. apaxojs| the duapria spoken of in 
verse 12, and descriptive of it as an unwillingness to hear 
(axon) the divine command. dyaprwdAot| real and not reputed 
sinners. This is the universal signification in the New Testa- 
ment. Compare Mat. ix. 10; Mark ii. 17; Luke vii. 39; John 
ix.31; Rom. iii. 17; Heb. vii. 26. xatecraJnoay| denotes that 
oi modo’ were “set down in a class, or under a category.” 
The verb xadiornpe never signifies “to make.” Causation is 
not implied by it. Even in passages like James iil. 6, iv. 4 
(where the English version translates by “is”), and 2 Pet. 
i. 8, the word signifies, “to place in the class of.” And in 
Acts xvii. 15, where it signifies, ‘to conduct,” it is because 
the conductor “sets down,” or appoints, all the movements 
of the person conducted. The meaning then is, that ‘the 
many were placed in the class, or category, of sinners,” for a 
reason that has been specified in the preceding statements 
concerning the connection between the one man and all men, 
in the first act of sin. Meyer explains thus: “The many 
were set down and classified as sinners, because, according 
to verse 12, they sinned in and with Adam in his fall.” The 
word xateotadnoay denotes merely a declarative (not a causa- 
tive) act upon the part of God; founded, however, upon a 
foregoing causative act upon the part of man. This fore- 
going causative act is the first sin of Adam. Because all 
sinned in Adam, God placed all in the list or catalogue of 


140 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


ToAXol, ovTas Kal dia THS UTraKons Tov évos Sixator KaTa- 
oTadjcovTar oi Tool. 


sinners. He pronounced them to be what they had already 
become by their own act in Adam. The action denoted by 
this verb, which is ambiguously rendered by ‘‘ made” in the 
English version, supposes the fact of natural union between 
those to whom it relates. All men are declared to be sin- 
ners, on the ground of the “one offence;” because, when 
that one offence was committed, all men were one man (om- 
nes eramus unus ille homo, Augustine),—that is, were one 
common nature in the first human pair,—and in this first 
original mode of their existence committed the original 
offence. The imputation of the first sin rests upon the fact 
of a created unity of nature and being. All mankind com- 
mit the first sin, and therefore all mankind are chargeable 
with it. The ethical principle, consequently, upon which 
original sin is imputed is the same as that upon which actual 
transgressions are imputed, It is imputed because it is com- 
mitted. All men are punished with death, because they 
literally sinned in Adam; and not because they are meta- 
phorically reputed to have done so, but in fact did not. ot 
moAdoi] are the same as the waves of verse 12. It is used 
rather than zavres, in order to make a verbal antithesis to 
Tov €v0s avJpwrov. | titaxons| denotes the entire agency of 
Christ, both in obedience and suffering. dixaro.l denotes 
those upon whom justice has no claims, either with respect 
to the penalty or the precept of the law, because both the 
penalty and the precept have been fulfilled, either person- 
ally, or vicariously. Under the law, a man is déKatos who has 
personally obeyed the precept. In this case there is no 
penalty to be fulfilled. Under the gospel (which is the 
status of the persons here spoken of), a man is déxavos who, 
by faith in Christ, has vicariously suffered the penalty, and 


CHAPTER V. 19. 141 


vicariously obeyed the precept. Kxatactadncovra] has, of 
course, the same signification as in the first part of the 
verse. The declaration that these persons are righteous, 
and the placing of them in this class, supposes, as in the 
other instance, the fact of a wnion between 6 es and ot 
moAoi: i, €., between Christ and believers. But this union 
differs in several important particulars, from that between 
Adam and his posterity. It is not. natural and substantial, 
but moral, spiritual, and mystical; not generic and univer- 
sal, but individual and by election; not caused by the crea- 
tive act of God, but by his regenerating act. All men with- 
out exception are one with Adam; only believing men are 
one with Christ. The imputation of Christ’s obedience, like 
that of Adam’s sin, is not an arbitrary act, in the sense that 
if God so pleased he could reckon either to the account of 
any beings whatever in the universe, by a volition. The sin 
of Adam could not be imputed to the fallen angels, for ex- 
ample, and be punished in them; because they never were 
one with Adam by unity of substance and nature. The fact 
that they have committed actual transgression of their own, 
would not justify the imputation of Adam’s sin to them; any 
more than the fact that the posterity of Adam have com- 
mitted actual transgressions of their own would be a suffi- 
cient reason for imputing the first sin of Adam to them. 
Nothing but a real union of nature and being can justify 
the imputation of Adam’s sin. And, similarly, the obedience 
of Christ could no more be imputed to an unbelieving man, 
than to a lost angel, because neither of these is morally, 
spiritually, and mystically one with Christ. ot woddo{] not 
all mankind, but only those persons who are described in 
verse 17, as ‘‘they which receive abundance of grace, and of 
the gift of righteousness.” Compare 1 Cor. xv. 22. At the 
close of this paragraph, in which St. Paul presents the paral- 
lel between Adam and Christ, with respect both to the re- 


149 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


semblance and the dissimilarity, we recapitulate the more 
important points: 1. At the time when Adam disobeyed, 
all men were one nature or species in him, and participated 
in his disobedience. Adam’s disobedience, consequently, is 
imputed to all men upon the ground of their race-partici- 
pation in it. 2. At the time when Christ obeyed, all men 
were not one nature or species in Him, and did not partici- 
pate in his obedience. Christ’s obedience, therefore, is im- 
puted without race-participation in it. 3. The natural or 
substantial union between Adam and his posterity was 
established in creation, prior to Adam’s disobedience. Con- 
sequently, when Adam disobeyed, he did not disobey alone, 
and by himself. The agency, in this instance, was a com- 
mon one. 4. The spiritual union between Christ and his 
people is established subsequently to creation, in regenera- 
tion. This union does not exist until after Christ’s obedi- 
ence has been accomplished; for it supposes the finished 
work of the Mediator. Consequently, Christ suffers and 
obeys alone and by himself (Isa. lxiii. 3). The ageney, in 
this case, is an individual one, only. 5. The imputation of 
Adam’s disobedience is necessary. All men have partici- 
pated in it, and hence all men must be charged with it. 6. 
The imputation of Christ’s obedience is optional. No man 
has participated in it, and whether it shall be imputed to 
any man, depends upon the sovereign pleasure of God. 7. 
The imputation of Adam’s sin is universal: no man escapes 
it. 8. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is particu- 
lar: only those who are chosen of God are the subjects of 
it. 9. The imputation of Adam’s sin is an act of justice, 
and a curse. 10. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness 
is an act of grace, and a blessing. 11. The imputation of 
Adam’s sin is merited, and not gratuitous. 12. The im- 
putation of Christ’s righteousness is gratuitous, and not 
merited. 


CHAPTER V. 20. 148 


on ae \ A 7 , \ t 
vopos O€ TapetanAdev, iva TAEoVaTH TO TapaTT@p-LA* 
ov oé émedvacev 7 cwapTia, UTEpeTTEepiacevoEeV 1 YapLS, 


Ver. 20 assigns the reason for the promulgation of the 
Mosaic law. The question naturally arises: If sin and death 
occurred in the way that has been described, previous to the 
Mosaic law, and without its use, then why its subsequent 
introduction? The answer is, that it was introduced in order 
to develop and manifest the sin of man originated in Adam’s 
fall. The object was not to prevent the apostasy: it was too 
late to do this. Neither was salvation from sin the object; 
for the law can do nothing but condemn to death. vopos| 
the written law of Moses. dé] is adversative, and supposes 
an objection to be mentally supplied: viz.: that if these 
representations respecting Adam’s sin are correct, then it 1s 
strange that a written law should have been promulgated so 
long a time after the apostasy and ruin of mankind. zapeo- 
jAtev| “came in alongside of.” The decalogue entered the 
world centuries after sin had entered it. Erasmus finds the 
notion of stealth, or secrecy (subintravit). ta] telic. It 
was the distinct purpose of God. mdeovacn| The decalogue 
was not promulgated with any expectation that it would, of 
itself, gradually diminish sin, and recover man from the ruin 
of the fall; but, on the contrary, with the intention that it 
should elicit and intensify human depravity, in order to its 
removal not by law, but by the Holy Ghost. The effect of 
law upon a sinful soul is to detect sin, and bring it into con- 
sciousness. Law makes sin “abound:” 1. apparently: by 
directing attention to it, and disclosing its nature. Com- 
pare vii. 9; Gal. iii. 19; 1 Cor. xv. 56. 2. really: by stimu- 
lation through checks (not stimulation by enticements, as in 
the case of temptation). The effect, upon the sinner, of the 
legal prohibition, coupled with the threat of punishment, is, 
to provoke to anger, and to intensify the self-will. ‘ Niti- 


144 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


21 7 ov > /- e e a , a - 
iva, @oTrep €Bacinevcey 7 auaptia év TH JavaTe@, ov- 


TwS Kai 1) yapis Bacievon Sia Stxatoctvys eis Swi aic- 
viov dia “Incot Xpictod Tov Kupiov nav. 


mur in vetitum.” maparrwpa] is the same as the dyapria of 
verse 12, but viewed as a concrete working principle in men. 
ov] local (Meyer); temporal (De Wette). imeprepiccevoer] 
compare comment on v. 15-17. ‘ 


Ver. 21. wa] denotes the purpose of vouos d¢ repeondIev ; 
showing that the cumulation, and “abounding” of sin in 
the consciousness of the sinner, is in order to its removal. 
Augustine (in Ps. cii.) remarks: “Non crudeliter hoc fecit 
deus, sed concilio medicine. Augetur morbus, ‘crescit mali- 
tia, queeritur medicus et totum sanatum.” éBacidevoey| en- 
tire sway and domination. é 1t@ Savare|] the sphere in 
which, and the instrument by which. d:uaoovvys|] that gra- 
tuitous and imputed righteousness described in chapter iv. 
aidviov| absolute endlessness. It is not expressed, here, with 
the contrary term Javaros, but is implied. When a qualify- 
ing word belongs equally to two substantives that are anti- 
thetic to each other, it may be omitted in the protasis to be 
suggested by the apodosis, or omitted in the apodosis, to be 
suggested by the protasis. Were the death temporal, the 
life being eternal, the writer would have qualified Jdvaros 
with some word denoting temporary duration (e. g. mpooKat- 
pos, Mat. xiii. 21), in order to prevent the reader from put- 
ting it under the same category with wi, as by the laws of 
grammar he would. 6 “Ijcod! both the medium and the 
mediator, 


CHAPTER VI. 


1 y ae 3A ’ , ae , e ‘ 
Ti obv épotpev ; eriysévopyev Th apaptia, wa 7 xdpts 
meovaon ; * uy yévorTo. olTives aTreddvouev TH apapTia, 


Tus chapter continues the description of the effects of 
gratuitous justification. The particular effect now to be 
mentioned is progressive sanctification. Faith in Christ’s 
atonement is the vital and spontaneous source of morality 
and piety. The peace of conscience spoken of in chapter vy. 
1 sq., as the immediate effect of the application of Christ’s 
blood, is naturally connected with holy living. A justified 
person, though regenerated, is imperfectly sanctified. He 
has remnants of original corruption. Owing to_these, he 
may lapse into sin, and sin mixes with his best experience; 
but he cannot contentedly ‘‘ continue in sin,” without any 
resistance of it and victory over it. St. Paul teaches, with 
great cogency and earnestness, that trust in Christ’s atoning 
blood is incompatible with self-indulgence and increasing 
depravity. The two things are heterogeneous, and cannot 
exist together. The proof of this is derived: 1. from the 
unity of the believer with Christ, in respect to Christ’s work 
of atonement, verses 1-14; 2. from the nature of the human 
will and of voluntary agency, verses 15-22. 


Vir. 1. ovv] in accordance with what has been said in v, 
20, 21. érmevwpev] is the reading of ABCDEFG Griesb., 
Lachm., Tisch. The word denotes a permanent abiding in 


sin, in distinction from a temporary lapse into it; a supine 
7 


146 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


indulgence of inward lust, in distinction from a steady strug- 
gle with and conquest of it. 77 déuepria] the article denotes 
sin as a state and condition: that sin which came into the 
world by the one man, and which has been the subject of 
examination in the preceding chapter. 7 xdpts] the grace 
that justifies without works. 


VER. 2. pi) yevorro] See comment on iii. 4, _ otrwes] denotes 
a class. Compare i. 25. The relative clause is placed first 
for emphasis, in order to impress the absurdity of the propo- 
sition. dmeJdvoyev TH dpaptia] Contrary to the view of the 
great majority of commentators, we regard this as objective 
in its meaning: “We who died jor sin.” (Storr, Flatt, 
Nitzsch: with these are to be associated Venema, Haldane, 
Chalmers, who explain by: “dead to the guilt of sin.”) St. 
Paul still has in view his previous line of remark respecting 
Christ’s tAacrypiov. This, confessedlv, is not a death to sin, 
but for sin. Believers, he has~ said, by their union with 
Christ, appropriate this death for sin, and make it their 
own, for purposes of justification. Believers, consequently, 
through their vicar and substitute, die for sin. In this 
vicarious manner they atone for their sin, as really as if they 
died personally for it. By this method they are “ justified 
gratuitously through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 
whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation” in their room 
and stead. Such is the teaching and argument of St. Paul, 
up to this point in the Epistle. The objection then is 
raised, that this method, so easy to the believer (though so 
costly to the Redeemer), is likely to produce self-indulgence. 
Believers will continue to sin, because an ample atonement 
has been made for them, and they have nothing to do but to 
rely upon it. The Christian life will, thus, be a course of 
perpetual sinning and perpetual trusting in vicarious atone- 
ment. Gratuitous justification will result in increasing de- 


iy / 


CHAPTER VI. 2, 147 


pravity and license. It is with reference to such an objec- 
tion as this, that the apostle asks the question: How can we 
who have died for sin live any longer therein? How can 
persons who are vicariously making an atonement for their 
transgression, continue to transgress? The ideas of expia- 
tion and license are incongruous. As states of mind they 
cannot co-exist. It is impossible at one and the same time 
to act faith in Christ’s blood, and indulge sinful lust. The 
one excludes the other. In proportion as the believer has a 
clear discernment of Christ’s expiatory work, and penitently 
trusts in it, he resists sin, and is kept from sin. In this way, 
gratuitous justification is not antinomian, but the very con- 
trary (iu. 31). This interpretation is favored by the follow- 
ing considerations. 1. The subjective meaning: “dying to 
sin,” yields nothing but a truism. To ask: How shall one 
who is dead to sin, live in sin? is like asking: How shall 
one who is growing better, grow worse? This is too obvi- 
ous to be argued. To say that death to sin is incompatible 
with living in sin, is merely to say that sanctification is in- 
compatible with unsanctification,—which is so self-evident 
that no one would even think of the contrary. But to say 
that justification is incompatible with unsanctification is not 
so evident as to be a mere truism, and affords ground for an 
argument,—which St. Paul furnishes, by examining the in- 
trinsic relation of atonement to self-indulgence, of justifica- 
tion to sanctification. 2. Both the preceding and the suc- 
ceeding context favors the objective meaning. In v. 3-5, 
the apostle has already alluded to the sanctifying effect of 
justification. ‘‘ Being justified by faith,” the believer has, 
as a consequence, hope of eternal blessedness, patience and 
even joy in the midst of affliction, the wisdom that comes 
from experience of earthly trials, and glowing love for God. 
These are graces of sanctification, that spring out of the 
sense of the divine forgiveness and acceptance in Christ. 


148 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Again, in v. 18, the writer describes gratuitous justification 
as a “justification unto life:” that is, one that aims at, and 
results in holiness. In this chapter, he resumes the same 
topic, by answering the objection that gratuitous justifica- 
tion must be destructive of morality and piety. The exege- 
sis of verses 3-11 will show that, with the exception of verse 
6, whenever “death” is spoken of, an atoning death for sin 
is meant. In this entire paragraph, the sanctification of 
the believer is directly connected with his appropriation of 
Christ’s vicarious sacrifice. It is not the believer's death to 
sin, that prevents him from continuing in sin; but it is 
Christ’s death for sin, trusted in and appropriated, that pre- 
vents this. 3. The notion of dying to sin, or the mortifica- 
tion of sinful lusts, is expressed by vexpow, rather than by 
amodvnoxw. See Coloss. iii. 5. 4. The idea that believers 
are one with Christ in his atoning death for sin, and that 
such a union is sanctifying, is taught in many other pas- 
sages. Compare Coloss. ii. 20. Here, the “death with 
Christ ” which the believer “ dies,” is Christ’s atoning death 
for sin. The preposition azo (in deJdvere) indicates the be- 
liever’s liberation from the claims of the moral and ceremo- 
nial law (crotxeta Tov Kdopov), by means of Christ’s expiation. 
The believer’s personal dying to sin, or sanctification, would 
not have this effect. The same idea is expressed in Gal. ii. 
19, 20. Upon the phrase voue dzéJavov, Ellicott, in loco, re- 
marks that ‘ dréJavoy is not merely ‘legi valedixi,’ but ex- 
presses generally, what is afterward more specifically ex- 
pressed in verse 20 by cvvectavpwuar. Noue is not merely the 
dative of ‘reference to,’ but a species of dative ‘commodi.’ 
The meaning is: ‘I died not only as concerns the law, but 
as the law required.’ The whole clause, then, may be thus 
paraphrased: ‘I, through the law, owing to sin, was brought 
under its curse; but having undergone this curse, with, and 
in the person of, Christ, I died to the law, in the fullest and 


CHAPTER VI. 3. 149 


deepest sense: being both free from its claims, and having 
satisfied its curse.’” Similarly, Meyer, in loco, explains. 
After quoting Bengel’s remark, that the clause, ‘‘I am cru- 
cified with Christ,” is “‘summa ac medulla Christianismi,” he 
says: “ By the crucifixion, the curse of the law was inflicted 
upon Christ (Gal. iii. 13). Whoever, therefore, is crucified 
with Christ, on him also is the curse of the law inflicted, so 
that by means of his ethical participation in the death of 
Jesus, he is conscious of having died &a vopov.” Bengel 
(Rom. vi. 3) remarks that “when one is baptized in refer- 
ence to Christ’s death, it is the same thing as if, at that mo- 
ment, Christ suffered, died, and was buried for such a man, 
and as if such a man suffered, died, and was buried with 
Christ.” 

Some commentators explain St. Paul’s co-crucifixion with 
Christ, to be his own personal sufferings in the cause of 
Christ. But St. Paul’s own sufferings would not be the 
reason why he is “dead to the law.” Christ’s atoning suf- 
fering is the reason of this. Again, in 2 Cor. v. 14, 15, the 
death for sin is presented as a motive for the death to sin, 
precisely as in the paragraph under consideration: ‘‘If one 
died for all, then all died” (in and with him, i.e.). The 
clause of mavtes avéJavov affirms that all believers die that 
expiatory death which Christ died trép wavrwv. And the 
purpose of this is, that they “should not henceforth live 
unto themselves.” The same sentiment is also taught in 
2 Tim. ii. 11. These passages abundantly prove that the 
doctrine of the believer’s unity with Christ in his vicarious 
death for sin is familiar to St. Paul, ‘and is strongly empha- 
sized by him. 


Ver. 3. 7| “or, if this is not perfectly clear.” dco] “all 
we who.” is] “with respect to.” The rite of baptism is 
referential, merely. “The formula PamrileoSai cis designates 


150 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


lal ” , > > n 3°64 > lal a tA 3 / 
mas éTt Cnoomev ev avTH; * 7 ayvoeite bt bc0t éBamrtic- 
> , a fal > \ A > fol , 7 
Inuev eis Xpiotov Inoody, eis tov Idvatov avtod éRamric- 


the object in respect to which the baptism is received, Mat. 
xxvill. 19; 1 Cor. i. 13; x. 1, 2. Hence the equivalent for- 
mula, BarricIjvo. éx’ dvopare (Acts ii. 38), and év 76 évopare 
(Acts x. 48).” Tholuck, in loco. So also, Bengel, Meyer, 
Hodge. Believers are not baptized in order to bring about 
a union with Christ, but because such a unicn has been 
brought about. The rite has reference to this fact of union, 
and is the sign, and not the cause, of it. Baptism presup- 
poses regeneration, and does not produce it. Xpiocrov| The 
God-man here represents the Trinity, with reference to 
whom Christ commanded the rite to be administered. Com- 
pare Gal. iii. 27. Such texts prove the deity of Christ. 
Baptism in the name of Christ alone (involving an altera- 
tion of the baptismal formula given in Mat. xxviii. 19) is not 
valid, according to the decision of the Church, in the con- 
troversy between Cyprian and Stephen: the latter of whom 
contended that baptism might be administered in the name 
of Jesus Christ simply. It would have been equally irregu- 
lar to baptize in the name of the Father alone, or of the 
Holy Spirit alone. The meaning and efficacy of baptism 
are indicated in Coloss. ii. 11,12. St. Paul here describes 
Christian baptism as a Christian circumcision: “the cireum- 
cision of Christ.” And the meaning and efficacy of circum- 
cision are indicated in Rom. iv. 11. It is a sign and seal of 
an already existing faith in the promised Redeemer. Abra- 
ham’s faith preceded his circumcision, and therefore was not 
produced by it. Similarly, faith precedes baptism, and is 
not the effect of it. In the case of infants, faith is involved 
and latent in regeneration; and infant baptism, like infant 
circumcision, is the sign and seal of regenerating . grace 
already bestowed, or to be bestowed. eis rov Savarov] “ with 


CHAPTER VI. 4. 15} 


Snpev ; * cuveradnucy ovv aita@ Sia Tod Bamticpatos eis 
x Ys ~ iA > / \ BJ lal \ 
Tov Jdvatov, iva wotrep nyépin Xpuotos €x vexpav Sia 


reference to his death:” which certainly was a death for sin, 
not to sin. Baptism, it is true, has a reference to the pollu- 
tion of sin, as well as the guilt of it (compare Eph. v. 26; 
Titus iii. 5); but the Apostle does not here allude to this 
part of the significance of the rite. He singles out only its 
reference to the atoning work of Christ, the objective dying 
for sin, because he is occupied particularly with this side of 
the subject. The question of the Apostle really is: “ Know 
ye not, that so many of us as were baptized with reference 
to Jesus Christ, were baptized with reference to his atone- 
ment ?” 


Ver. 4. Compare Coloss. ii. 12. curerddypev] “ We were 
entombed.” This word, contrary to the opinion of many 
commentators, has no reference to the rite of baptism, be- 
cause the burial spoken of is not in water, but in a sepul- 
chre. ‘‘@dztw signifies: to pay the last dues to a corpse ; 
and so, at first, to burn it, as in Od. xii. 12; then, as the 
ashes were usually inurned and put under ground, to bury, 
inter, entomb, as Od. xi. 52.” Liddell and Scott in voce. 
Burial and baptism are totally diverse ideas, and have noth- 
ing in common. In order to baptism, the element of water 
must come into contact with the body baptized; but in a 
burial, the surrounding element of earth comes into no con- 
tact at all with the body buried. The corpse is carefully 
protected from the earth in which it is laid. Entombment, 
consequently, is not the emblem of baptism, but of death. 
Entombment would be even a more inappropriate term by 
which to describe the rite of baptism, than would “ ingraft- 
ing” which follows as another emblem of the believer’s 
union with Christ, and which has never been associated, by 


152 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


commentators, with the rite of baptism. Svveradnyev must, 
therefore, be referred back to dweSdvouev, in verse 2, and not 
forward to Baztioparos. ‘ We died and were entombed with 
Christ, by means of the baptism that refers to his death.” 
The preposition denotes co-burial of the believer with the 
atoning Redeemer. Compare ovvecravpwya, in Gal. ii. 20. 
The rite of baptism, which the believer has received, is a 
sign and authenticating seal that by faith he has been made 
one with Christ, in respect to (eis) Christ’s death for sin. 
Baptism signifies, that by faith he has been laid in the tomb 
with Christ; and Christ was laid in the tomb as an atone- 
ment. vuverddypev ato, being thus exegetical of dreFavopev 
Ty épaptia, in verse 2, makes it certain that this latter clause 
is objective in its meaning. It is indisputable, that Christ 
when laid in the tomb did not die to sin, but for sin; and 
consequently a co-burial with him in this same reference (eis 
Tov Javarov) cannot mean the mortification of lust, or dying 
to sin. ovy| introduces an inference from the fact that these 
believers were baptized with special reference to Christ’s ex- 
piatory death. 64 rod Barticparos] the preposition denotes 
a secondary agency only, Baptism is not the efficient cause 
of that union with Christ whereby the believer dies with him 
in his atoning death, and is buried with him, The efficient 
cause is the Holy Spirit, in regeneration. It is here that 
the spiritual and the sacramentarian theories of baptism find 
their point of divergence. Baptism is a sign that the soul is 
already united to Christ, and has already died with him. 
The article denotes the peculiarity in the baptism. is rov 
Javatov| qualifies Barricparos. The baptism has particular 
reference to the atoning death of Christ. The piacular ele- 
ment is singled out, and distinguished from the rest of 
Christ’s redemptive agency. iva] indicates the purpose in- 
tended by God, by the believer’s death and burial with 
Christ: viz.; that he may “walk in newness of life.” This 


CHAPTER VI. 5. 153 


A ld A r/ ed N e a > Le fol 
Ths d0&ns Tod TaTpos, oUTwWs Kal pels ev KaLVOTHTL Cwijs 
mepiTratnowmpe. ° el yap cvpupuTor yeyovapey TO OmoLopaTe 
Tov Javadtov avTov, adda Kal THs avactdcews eoopeda, 


is an additional proof that dying for sin is incompatible with 
living in sin. The divine purpose puts things together, that 
agree together. And here, again, the subjective explana- 
tion results in a truism. To say that the believer dies to 
sin, in order that he may “walk in newness of life,” is 
equivalent to saying that the purpose of the believer’s 
sanctification, is that he may be sanctified. d0&)s| is a 
general term, including all the attributes of God; but is 
sometimes put for a particular attribute. It stands here for 
the attribute of omnipotence. Compare 1 Cor. vi. 14; Eph. 
1.19, 20. xawéryre ons] a new order or structure of life; it 
is stronger than {wy Kaw7. 


Vur. 5. yap] introduces a corroborative explanation of the 
statement made in the preceding verse. ovjdpurou| sc. Xpioro. 
A new figure, derived from the kingdom of vegetable life, 
follows the previous figure taken from the realm of death. 
The rendering, “planted together,” as if the term were de- 
rived from ov and guredw (Vulg., Luther, Eng. Ver.), is 
incorrect. The root is ow and dvw- “ grown together,” or 
“ingrafted.” Christ’s comparison of the vine and the 
branches, John xv. 1 sq., explains the term. dépowpare] de- 
notes the “form,” or “shape,” as in Rom. i. 23; v. 14; vii. 
3; Phil. 1.7; Rev. ix. 7%. It is best construed with ovpduror, 
as the dative of manner (Vulg., Chrys., Calvin, Tholuck, 
Olsh., De Wette, Meyer). Javarov] denotes, as in the pre- 
ceding verses, an expiatory death for sin. dAAa] is employed 
_ often, in the classics, to introduce the apodosis of a condi- 
tional proposition in a bold and emphatic manner: “then, 
certainly, all the more shall, etc.” dvacracews] supplying the 

* 


154 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


* ToDTO YyLYw@aKOVTES, OTL O TAAALOS Ud@Y aVIpwrros GUVE- 
otavpodn, wa Katapyndh TO cGpa Tis dpaptias, Tod 


ellipses, the clause runs thus: éA\a Kal 7@ 6poupare Tys ava- 
ordcews abtod ovipputo Xpiota eoopeda. Growing together in 
the “form” of death, involves growing together in the 
“form” of life. Resurrection is often the symbol of regen- 
eration and sanctification. Compare John y. 24, 25; Coloss. 
“is Ephe vel. 


Ver. 6. This verse is immediately connected with the pre- 
ceding, and constitutes a part of the total proposition begun 
in verse 5. Todro ywwoKovtes| “since we know:” the parti- 
ciple assigns a reason. St. Paul adduces the personal experi- 
ence of the believer, in proof that dying for sin with Christ 
is accompanied with rising with Christ to newness of life. 
The believer himself is conscious that the sense of forgive- 
ness and acceptance with God is sanctifying; that faith in 
the atonement ‘works by love” (Gal. v. 6), ‘‘ purifies the 
heart” (Acts xv. 9), and “overcomes the world” (1 John vy. 4). 
madawds avJpwros| denotes the sum-total of human powers and 
faculties before regeneration. Compare Eph. iv. 22; Coloss. 
li. 9. It is equivalent to corrupt human nature: the “old 
leaven” of 1 Cor. v. 7, 8. ovvecravpwdy] is employed, here, 
in the subjective reference, and not objectively as in Gal. ii. 
20, because the apostle is now describing an effect of justifi- 
cation as found in the actual experience of the believer. The 
idea of expiation is not now in view, but of mortification ; 
because this crucifixion and death is that of the “old man,” 
and not, as in the preceding context, that of the Lord Jesus 
Christ. ta] denotes the purpose of this personal crucifixion 
of the believer, or dying ¢o sin. xatapynJy| is a strong word 
frequently used by St. Paul: it signifies a complete abolish- 
ing, and verges in its meaning upon annihilating. cdma THs 





~ 


CHAPTER VI. 7. 155 - 


: , S me r Ran Aaae Baie Lie a8 \ ’ 9. \ 
pnkere Sovrevey Huds TH dpaptia: "0 yap atodJavev 
Sedixaiwtat amo Ths auwaptias. * et O€ ametavoyev adv 


Gpaprias| 1. The body as ruled by sin; as described in verses () 
12 and 138 of the context (De Wette, Meyer, Alford). 2. The@ 
body as the seat and source of sin (Semler, Usteri, Riickert). 

3. The equivalent of radads avIpwros (Augustine, Luther, 
Hodge). 4. The total mass of sin: “body,” in the figurative *, 
sense (Origen, Chrysostom, Grotius, Calvin, Philippi). The ©. - 
third explanation is preferable, because the “ destruction of 

the body of sin” is the result of the “crucifixion of the old 

> and because cya is subsequently put for oapé, or 
corrupt nature, in Rom. viii. 12, and the bodily ‘members ” 


man;’ 


_ are made to represent the faculties of both body and soul, 
in vi. 12, 138, 19; vii. 5. The second of the interpretations 
is objectionable, because it ascribes a merely sensuous ori- 
gin to sin. dovAevev| Sin is the bondage of the will, John 
vill. 34. 


‘Vur. 7. The apostle returns, after the reference in verse 6 
to the actual experience of the believer, to his argument con- 
cerning the connection of dying for sin to dying to sin, or 
of justification to sanctification. yap] is introductory only. 
arodavav| supply ov Xpictd, as in verse 8, and suggested by 
it: “he who died with Christ,” in the manner described in 
verses 2-5. deduxatwrar ao] ‘‘is justified from.” Compare 
Acts xii. 39. The rendering: “freed from” (Eng. Ver.) is 
misleading, unless it be explained as “freed from the guilt 
of.” Freedom from sin, in the sense of cessation from sin, 
would require wéravra, as in 1 Pet. iv. 1. The apostle’s 
meaning is, that he who has died with Christ for sin, is there- 
by justified, and delivered from the curse and condemnation 
of sin. When Christ’s atonement has been made the believ- 
er’s atonement, by faith and the mystical. union, then “all 





156 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Xpictd, micrevopev Ste Kal ovvojcopev avT@, ° eidoTes OTe 
Xpictos éyepels ex vexpov ovKéTe avrodvyicKer* Idvatos 


Christ’s sufferings and obedience are as certainly the believ- 
er’s own, as if he had himself suffered and done all in his 
own person” ( Heidelberg Catechism, 79); and then ac- 
quittal follows naturally and necessarily, according to both 
the Rabbinical and the legal maxim: “The criminal when 
executed has atoned for his crime.” This verse is conclusive 
in respect to the meaning of the phrase dreJavopev TH amaprtia, 
in verse 2. For, to affirm that ‘he who has died éo sin is 
thereby “justified from sin,” would be making subjective 
holiness the ground of pardon, or sanctification the procur- 
ing cause of justification,—than which, nothing could be 
more antagonistic to the Pauline doctrine. 


Vir. 8. 6é] is transitive to the inference, that union with 
Christ in his atonement involves union with him in spiritual 
life and sanctification. dzeJavopev] in the piacular manner 
described in verses 2, 3, 4, 7, and Gal. ii. 20. murevouer] 
expresses the confident expectation of the believer. oavvéy- 
copev] the future denotes the natural consequence. «As 
Christ’s revivification naturally followed his crucifixion, so 
the believer’s sanctification naturally follows his justifica- 
tion. It is the same thought which has been presented in 
verse 5. Compare also Heb. x. 5, where believers are said 
to be “sanctified by means of the offering of the body of 
Jesus Christ.” 


Ver. 9. eiddres|] the same use of the participle as in verse 
6: “since we know.” odxére droIvycxe] Christ’s piacular 
death occurs but once, Heb. x. 10. xvprever] Christ’s con- 
quest of and dominion over death, is taught in Acts i. 24; 
1 Cor, xv. 54-57; 2 Tim. i. 10; Rev, i. 18. 


CHAPTER VI. 10, 11. 157 


YTOU OUKE yet. *° d yap améJavev, TH aapTia aTré- 
avTOD OvUKETL KupLEvet. yap aré , TH apaptia arré 
a lol a lol “)! \ e an 

Savev epamaE: 0 bé &, G& TH Jew. “ ovTWS Kal Kpels 
AoyiGerde EavTovs eivar vexpovs pev TH apaptia, favtas 


Vur. 10. yap] introduces a reason why death no longer 
has dominion over Christ. 6] 1. xara d.- “as respects his 
death.” 2. the direct object of dwéJavev: “that (namely 
death) which he died;” like 6 G@, in Gal. 11. 20 (Meyer). 
dpaptia| “for the guilt of sin.” épaxag] Compare Heb. vii. 
27; ix. 12; x. 10. 6] is to be resolved like the preceding 6. 
Jeo] the dative of advantage: for God’s service and glory. 


Ver. 11 applies the foregoing statement that Christ died 
once for sin, and then forever after lives for God, to believ- 
ers. otrws| introduces the application. AoyierFe] to “ reck- 
on,” or “account,” as in iv. 3-10. The employment of this 
word here confirms the explanation given of dreddvopev TH 
dpaptia, in verses 2,7, 8. The notion of reckoning, or im- 
puting, is congruous with dying for sin and justification, but 
incongruous with dying to sin and sanctification. Believers 
can “‘reckon” or ‘account ” themselves to have died fully 
and completely for sin, in and with Christ; but they cannot 
*‘reckon” or “account ” themselves to have died fully and 
completely to sin. They may regard themselves to be com- 
pletely justified, but not completely sanctified. éavrovs] re- 
flexive: “your ownselves.” vexpovs] denotes the state and 
condition resulting from the act denoted by amodvyjcKxev. TH 
épaptia| “for sin,” as above. Believers are exhorted to be 
mindful of Christ’s atoning death, and to “reckon” it as 
their own (éavrovs) death for the guilt of their own sin. 
favras| those who possess that fw) aimvios which is the con- 
trary of Javaros aiwvos, and which is the gift (xdpicpa) ot 
God, vi. 23. It does not denote complete sanctification, 
though it will finally result in this. It is a complex idea, 


158 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


12 


\ e tay od ad la) \ 9 , CAR 
dé TO Jew ev Xptotd “Incod. ” wy odv BacidevéT@ 1) dpap- 


/ a iA Se a a 
tla €v TH IVNTO VUaV THpaTl eis TO UTaKOvEW Tals EéTrL- 


including regeneration, justification or the imputation of 
both the active and passive righteousness of Christ, and pro- 
gressive sanctification. Believers are to regard themselves 
as in this state and condition. As “alive for and in refer- 
ence to God,” they are free from condemnation, have a title 
to heavenly blessedness, are renewed in the spirit of their 
minds, are dying to sin, and increasing in the love and 
knowledge of God. te Jed| the dative of advantage: “for 
God;” for his honor and service. év Xpuor@] qualifies both 
vexpovs and évras: this “reckoning” is possible, and allow- 
able, only in case the person is united to Christ, ‘a man in 
Christ,” 2 Cor. xii. 2. 


Ver. 12. St. Paul has concluded his argument to prove 
that dying for sin is incompatible with living in sin; or trust 
in vicarious atonement with self-indulgence. Having shown 
the natural and homogeneous connection between justifica- 
tion and sanctification, he now proceeds to urge believers, 
by motives drawn from their justification, to resist their 
remaining corruption. ovv] “therefore,” in accordance with 
the previous reasoning. Because they are no longer in the 
state and condition of death (Javaros), but of life (wy), they 
have inducement and encouragement to withstand the sin 
that lingers in them. Were they still under condemnation, 
they would have no motive for such a struggle, and could 
not succeed in it. An unforgiven man is powerless against 
sin. The fear of condemnation paralyzes him. factAcvero| 
sin exists in the believer, but it must not be allowed to be 
the ruling principle within him. Holiness must be BactAes. 
) dpaptia] remaining sin, personified. JIvyroe] “per con- 
temptum vocat mortale.” Calvin, in loco. owparc] is not to. 








CHAPTER VI. 13. 159 


> la} 13 Ny / \ /- ec a oe 
Supiats avTov, * wndé tapiordvete TA pédn Duaov Orra 
Golkias TH apapTia, adNrAa TapacTHaaTe EavTors TO JED 


be taken here, in its restricted sense; but as standing for 

oapé, or the entire man as corrupt. The “lusts of the body” 
include mental as well as physical desires. The succeeding 
use of pédy, which in the restricted sense means only cor- 
poral members, proves this. See comment on vill. 13. eis 
To traxovew| denotes the tendency of the domination or 
kingship of sin. émJvptas| is a general term, comprehend- 
ing both mental and physical lusts. St. Paul gives a list of 
lusts, in Gal. vy. 19-21. Among them are the sensual crav- 
ings of fornication and drunkenness, and the intellectual 
cravings of envy and emulation. The distinguishing char- 
acteristic in érudvuia is, that it is forbidden desire. Those 
desires that are permitted and allowed by God cannot be 
denominated “lusts.” Provision is made for them in crea- 
tion, and they are innocent cravings. But those desires, 
either of the body or the mind, that issue from corrupt 
human nature (i. e., human nature, not as made by God, but 
as vitiated by man) are prohibited cravings, and are sinful 
and guilty. All such desires, or lusts, are forbidden by the 
tenth commandment, which, in the original reads: “Thou 
shalt not lust.” St. Paul includes all the varieties of them 
under the term émdJuuia. It is to be noticed, that the in- 
ward rising of lust is itself sin, apart from the external act; 
otherwise it would not be forbidden. See Christ’s decision 
of the question, in Mat. v. 22, 28. See the comment on 
Rom, vii. 7. 


Ver. 13 continues the exhortation to resist indwelling 
sin. mapictdvere| is here employed in the military sense of 
presenting in line, and before officers. séAy| includes the 
mental faculties, as well as the bodily organs; just as émudv- 


160 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


€ 3 A an \ X\ I e lal v4 , 
as é« vexpov Covras Kal Ta médn buav Stra SiKatocvyns 
TO Jem. “ duaptia yap buev ov KuUplevoEr* ov yap éaTE 
UT VOMOV, GANA UTO yapw. 


pia includes mental as well as physical lusts. Compare 
Coloss. ili, 5, where the ‘‘members which are upon the 
earth” comprise “ covetousness which is idolatry,” as well 
as “fornication and uncleanness.” d7Aa| the weapons by 
which sin would maintain its dominion. tH dpuapria| the 
dative of the object: antithetic to Je@. wapacrycare| the 
change from the present to the aorist denotes the energy 
and instantaneousness of the action enjoined. éavrovds] ex- 
plains péAy, and shows that the latter cannot be confined to 
physical appetites merely. The whole self is included, both 
soul and body. #s] denotes the quality of the persons 
spoken of: “being such as.” We retain this reading, with 
Meyer, although ocx is more strongly supported (SABC 
Lachm., Tisch.). If aoe is accepted, it must be restricted 
to a connection with é« vexpov, to the exclusion of érras. 
dixacocvvys | not in the technical meaning of justification, but 
as the contrary of déucéas in the preceding clause. Compare 
verse 16. . 


Ver. 14. An encouragement to obey the exhortation in 
verses 12 and 13. xvpuetdoer| sin, although not extinct in the 
believer, nevertheless, shall not have lordship (xvpwos) and 
controlling sway. The “strong man” is still within the 
house, but a stronger than he has entered’ and bound the 
occupant, and is spoiling his goods, Mat. xii. 28, 29. The 
principle of holiness, in the believer, is mightier than the 
remnants of the principle of sin. Sin in fragments is weaker 
than holiness in mass. ydp] introduces the reason of this 
fact. ov éore b76 vopor] this is said relatively, not absolutely. 
As rational creatures simply, the subjects of God’s moral 


CHAPTER VI. 14. 161 


government merely, they are still under law. Compare Gal. 
iv. 4, 5, 21. In this reference, it cannot be said of any man 
or angel that he is not under law. But, as trusting in 
Christ’s atonement,—as those who in and with Christ have 
died an expiatory death for sin,—they are not under law 
viewed as retributive and punitive. By means of Christ’s 
death, believers have discharged their obligation to satisfy 
the law by their own death, and are no longer under it, in 
this particular. An unbeliever, on the contrary, is under 
law and not under grace, in that he is obligated to suffer 
in his own person the punishment which the law threatens 
against sin. Having rejected the vicarious endurance of 
the penalty by a third person, he must endure it in the first 
person. 

Again, believers are not “under the law” in regard to 
their title to eternal blessedness. The law promises this 
future reward, upon the condition that a perfect personal 
obedience has been rendered. The believer is not discour- 
aged by this condition, so impossible of fulfilment by him. 
He has a full title to this great reward, although his own 
personal obedience has been very imperfect, because Christ 
as his vicar (in this case also, as in that of the endurance 
of penalty) has rendered an absolutely perfect obedience 
for him. His conviction, therefore, that eternal reward is 
awaiting him, does not rest upon his own imperfect sancti- 
fication, but upon Christ’s sinless obedience, and perfect 
righteousness.* xdpw] the grace that justifies in this com- 
plete manner, ‘‘ without works,” or perfect personal obedi- 
ence. 


* While this effect of Christ’s active righteousness belongs to an 
exhaustive exegesis of St. Paul’s affirmation that believers are ‘‘not 
under law but under grace,” the principal reference, thus far in the 
Epistle, has been to the passive righteousness—to the negative deliver- 
ance from condemnation, rather than to the positive title to life, 


162 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


16 WB 5 € , e > 5) \ CON , 
b OUVVY 5; GALAPTNOWLEV, OTL OUK EOMEVY UTO VOMoV 
a NN , \ l 169 7 cr e 
QANAQA UTO Xapw > 2) YEvotTo. OUK oloaTte OT’ @ TAPt- 
2 e 


/ € n t 
aTdvete éavtovs Sovdrous eis vmaxony, SodAoL éoTEe © 


Ver. 15 contains an objection similar to that in verse 1: 
viz., that the doctrine of grace and justification is antino- 
mian. ‘Ti ody] sc. épotwev, as in verse 1. dpaptycwper| is the 
reading of SABCDEL Lachm., Tisch. to vépor, etc.] is 
repeated, for emphasis. 


Ver. 16. Compare 2 Pet. ii. 19. The argument, here, is 
derived from the nature of the human will, and of voluntary 
agency. Purpose and inclination in one direction are in- 
compatible with purpose and inclination in the contrary 
direction. It is the argument of Christ in Mat. vi. 24; vii. 
18. No man can serve two masters, at one and the same 
moment. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither 
can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. The connection 
of thought is as follows: * Because you have died with Christ 
for sin, and are delivered from condemnation, and have a 
full title to eternal reward, you are obligated, by such gra- 
cious treatment, not to yield yourselves to the lusts that 
still remain, but to yield yourselves to the holy law of God 
(verses 12, 13). This you have done. You are obeying 
from the heart (verse 17). Your wills are surrendered to 
Christ and righteousness. Such being the facts of the case, 
the proposition to ‘sin because we are not under law, but 
under grace’ is self-contradictory. The nature of the will 
and of voluntary agency forbids it. You cannot do these 
two contrary things at one and the same time.” apurravere] 
looks back to verse 13. éavrovs| the reflexive pronoun de- 
notes the spontaneity and willingness of the agency. There 
is no compulsion in an inclination, be it good or evil. dov- 
dovs| signifies total subjection. The self-surrender of the 


CHAPTER VI. 1%. 163 


ig , ” e , > 3 4 Xx e a b 6 

jrakoveTe, TOL apaptias eis Idvatov 7) UvTaKors Els OL- 
A tal ccd 5 nw a ec 

Kavoovvny ; “ yapis 5é TH Ie@ OTe Are Sovdoe Tis apap- 


will is complete. The will is not in equilibrio, and able to 
do right as easily as wrong, or wrong as easily as right. 
The will has a decided bias. is taaxonv] indicates the pur- 
pose of the action in wapiotavere. dodAoi] sc. éexewodv, The 
collocation is emphatic. traxovere] implies that the slavery 
is voluntary. It arises from the action of the human will 
itself, and not from any external cause or arrangement. 
yto.| shows that this species of bondage may be connected 
with either sin or holiness; and this, because it is the bond- 
age of a bias, or inclination. duaprias] Compare 2 Pet. ii. 
14; John viii. 34. For an explanation of the latter text, see 
the author’s Sermons to the Natural Man, pp. 202-230.  «is| 
indicates the terminus and issue of sin. Compare verse 21. 
Savatov| death physical, spiritual, and eternal, as in v. 12. 
This proves that the bondage in question is culpable, and 
punishable. dccaroovvnv] is best regarded, here, as subjective 
righteousness, the opposite of déuca, as in verse 15. This 
is what personal obedience results in. Personal obedience is 
not eis ducacoovvyy in the sense of gratuitous justification. So, 
Philippi, Hodge. 


Ver. 17. je] the tense is emphatic: “ye were,” but are 
no longer. The apostle thanks God that their total and 
helpless bondage to sin is a fact of the past, and not of the 
present. €« kapdias| willingly, and not by compulsion. In 
the Biblical psychology, heart and will are interchangeable. 
Compare Luke i. 17; 2 Cor. ix. 7; Rom. x. 9,10; Prov. xxxi. 
11; Ps. exix.112. is dv, etc.| is best resolved by to ri7e Tis 
didaxns <is Ov mapedddyre. mapedddnre| the passive: “ were in- 
trusted.” voy] that plan of salvation which they had re- 
ceived from those who had first taught them the Christian 


164 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


tias, bmnkovaate Sé éx Kapdias eis dv mapedoInte Tov 
Sudayijs. * edevIepwlevtes SE ard THs dpaptias eovdrw- 


religion, and which St. Paul is now restating for them. It 
is what he denominates elsewhere ‘‘my gospel,” xvi. 25. 
The term is similar to popdwors in ii. 20. See the comment. 
This verse is not connected with the following, but with the 
preceding. It merely states the fact that they whom he is 
addressing are servants of righteousness, after the preced- 
ing statement that they must be either one thing or the 
other; either servants of sin, or of righteousness. 


Ver. 18 reaffirms the fact of obedience from the heart, 
asserted in verse 17, and mentions a necessary consequence 
of it: viz., slavery to righteousness. This consequence goes 
to prove that reckless and unresisted sinning is incompatible 
with grace (verse 15). éAevdepudévres|] freed not perfectly 
and absolutely, from all remainders of sin, but substantially 
and virtually, from sin as a dominant disposition. Compare 
verse 22. Believers are free from the condemning power of 
sin, and from its enslaving power. They are not under the 
curse of the law, and their wills are not, as in the days of 
unregeneracy, in total and helpless bondage to the principle 
of evil. ‘The converted,” says Leighton (Sermon ix.), “are 
delivered from the dominion of original sin, though not from 
the molestation and trouble of it. Though it is not a quiet 
and uncontrolled master, as it was before, yet it is in the 
house still as an unruly servant or slave, even vexing and 
annoying them: and this body of death they shall still-have 
cause to bewail, till death release them. And it is this, more 
than any other sorrows or afflictions of life, that makes the 
godly man not only content to die, but desirous: longing 
‘to be dissolved, and be with Christ which is far better.’ ” 
As a man is physically free whose fetters have been broken, 


CHAPTER VI. 18. 165 


although their fragments may not have been removed, and 
he be much impeded by them in his movements, so a man is 
spiritually free, in whom sin as a nature or principle has been 
slain, although its remnants still hinder him in holy living. 
Compare John viii. 32, 36; Ps. cxix. 45; James i. 25; i. 12; 
Gal. v. 1; Rom. viii. 2; Is. lxi. 1. 6é] is transitive: “now.” 
édovAwIynte| Freedom from sin is slavery to holiness. There 
is no liberty of indifference, so that the will is equally facile 
to sin and holiness. If there were, then believers might 
“sin, because they are not under law but under grace” 
(verse 15); and might “continue in sin, that grace may 
abound” (verse 1). Bias to holiness implies the absence of 
bias to sin; and vice versa. But without bias, or inclina- 
tion, no moral act can be performed in either direction. 
Hence, inclination in one direction is impotence in the other. 
St. Paul has asserted that the persons whom he is addressing 
are, as matter of fact, positively inclined to holiness. They 
are obeying ék xapdias (verse 17). Consequently, by their 
holy inclination, and because of it, they are slaves in respect 
to holiness, and freedmen in respect to sin. It must be care- 
fully observed, that the term ‘‘slavery” when employed by 
St. Paul in connection with sin and holiness, is used in a 
relative signification; as he implies in his assertion, évJIpwm- 
vov Aé€yw (verse 19). In the absolute and unqualified signifi- 
cation, slavery is compulsion. A slave in this sense is not 
voluntarily inclined, or self-determined, in his enslavement. 
He is forced into it by another. In this sense, neither the 
sinner nor the believer is a slave; neither sin nor holiness is 
slavery. But in the relative sense, in which St. Paul here em- 
ploys the term, slavery is an inability to the contrary resulting 
Srom a foregoing activity of the will, A man, for illustration, 
is physically a slave, who, instead of being forced into slavery, 
has sold himself into this condition. He cannot now recover 
himself from a self-determined status, and is in as real and 


166 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


complete a bondage, as the slave captured in war or kid- 
napped in peace. Such is the slavery of sin. And the other 
phrase of St. Paul: “slaves of righteousness,” is to be ex- 
plained in the same way. This also is an inability to the 
contrary resulting from a foregoing act and state of the will. 
Holy inclination is inability to sin. It is true, that inclina- 
tion of the will upon the side of holiness differs greatly from 
inclination upon the side of sin, in respect to the ultimate 
origin of it. The former originates in the operation of the 
Holy Spirit upon the human faculty, while the latter is self- 
determination pure and simple, without any internal efficien- 
cy of the Holy Ghost. Yet the former is as really and truly 
the will’s inclination as the latter; and inability to the con- 
trary accompanies the former as it does the latter. There 
is, consequently, a “slavery to righteousness,” as well as a 
“slavery to sin.” A will which, by regeneration, has been 
“powerfully determined” (Westminster L. C., 67) and in- 
clined to holiness, is unable to sin, in the sense in which 
Christ intends, when he says that ‘a good tree cannot bring 
forth evil fruit” (Mat. vii. 18); and in which St. John in- 
tends, when he asserts that the regenerate “ cannot sin, 
because he is born of God” (1 John iii. 9.) This does not 
mean, that the regenerate, while here upon earth, is sinlessly 
perfect, committing no actual transgression, and having no 
remainders of sinful inclination. See 1 John i. 8. But it 
means that the regenerate will is unable to sin in the manner 
of the unregenerate will: i.e., dmpenitently and totally. The 
good man cannot feel and act as he did in the days of im- 
penitency. He is “enslaved to righteousness.” ‘Old things 
have passed away, and all things have become new.” And 
when the ultimate consequence of regeneration, namely, per- 
fect sanctification, shall be reached in the heavenly state, the 
believer will be unable to sin, even in the manner in which 
he did while upon earth. The posse peccare of imperfect - 


CHAPTER VI. 19, 167 


Inte TH Sixatocivyn. “ dvIparivov Aéyo Sia Tiv aoSé- 
VELAY THS TAPKOS DOV. BaTTEP Yap TapecTHcaTE TA MEAN 


sanctification will become the nom posse peccare of sinless 
perfection. 

This minor element of difference between the “slavery to 
sin,” and the “slavery to righteousness,” arises from a dif- 
ference between the effects of apostasy, and the effects of 
regeneration. The apostasy of the human will resulted im- 
mediately and instantaneously in ¢tota/ depravity: viz., a sin- 
ful inclination, with no remainders of the previous holy in- 
clination. But the regeneration of the will does not result 
immediately and instantaneously in tota/ sanctification: viz., 
a holy inclination with no remainders of the previous sinful 
inclination. A holy inclination ig originated, but remnants 
of sin are left. These fragments, though moribund, continue 
to show a lingering vitality, in the manner described by St. 
Paul in Rom. vii. 14-25. See comment. 

No portion of Scripture has more psychological value than 
this, in determining the true nature of the human will. Com- 
pare Aristotle’s Ethies, iii. 5, and Plato’s Alcibiades, i. 135; 
where the same view is taken of the “slavery to evil,” though 
nothing is said of the ‘slavery to good.” 


Ver. 19 is explanatory of the terms freedom and slavery, 
in the preceding verse. The phrase “ enslaved to righteous- 
ness” is an unusual one. dvJpwrwov| borrowed from human 
relationships: those, namely, of master and slave. doSeveav] 
infirmity in spiritual perception. oapxds| denotes unspiritual 
human nature which does not discern the things of the Spirit. 
See the explanation in 1 Cor. ii. 6-14. Believers have re- 
mainders of this ignorance which obscure their full spiritual 
understanding. Hence, the need of illustrations, to explain 
spiritual freedom and spiritual bondage. dozep yap| looks 


168 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS 


€ a an rol’ 0b) f \ ied Ee i“ > \ 3 , 
tpav Sodd\a TH axadapcia Kal TH avouta eis THY avopiar, 
oUTwWS VoV TapacTHicaTe TA pédn tuwav SovrAa TH SvKaLo- 


back to verse 18, and introduces an explanation of the state- 
ment there; especially the statement in the last clause. The 
particular expression most needing to be explained, in the 
illustration drawn from human relations, is, ‘‘ enslavement 
to righteousness.” This, upon the face of it, looks as if 
holiness were compulsion. It is not so; “for (yép) as you 
once willingly and entirely surrendered yourselves to sin, and 
were in this way slaves of sin, so now willingly and entirely 
surrender yourselves to righteousness, and be in this same 
voluntary manner slaves of righteousness.” St. Paul, by 
thus repeating the phraseology already twice employed by 
him, in verses 13 and 16, $hows his readers plainly what he 
means by the terms “slavery” and “‘freedom,” in this con- 
nection. It is a slavery, and a freedom, that is founded in 
the nature of the human will, and not in physical causes. 
peAn| See comment on verse 13. dotdAa] the adjective has 
the full signification of the substantive dotAo. dxadapoia] 
instead of duaptia (verse 15), to denote sin in its relation to 
man, and in its sensuous aspect: “impurity.” dvouia] sin in 
its spiritual aspect, and as related to law and God. «is ry 
dvouiay| 1. the purpose: in order that iniquity as a principle 
may go into outward act (Meyer, Stuart, Hodge). 2, the 
result: the principle issues in an abiding state (De Wette, 
Tholuck, Lange, Alford). The latter is preferable, because 
of the antithetic term dyacpds. dixatoovvy| is used in the 
subjective sense, as the contrary of dxaJapoiy and dvopia. 
dyiacpov| sanctification, as the state of the soul. Compare 
vi. 22; 1 Cor. i. 30; 1 Thess. iv. 3, 4, 7; 2 Thess. ii. 13; Heb. 
xii. 14; 1 Pet. i. 2. 


Ver. 20. This verse teaches the same doctrine of the will 


CHAPTER VI. 20 169 


, > e 4 20 \ 5 o i A e , 
oun ELS aylacpov. bre yap SodAot ATE THS apaptias 
erevSepor ate TH SiKarocvvy. * Tiva odv KapTrOY EixXETE 


with verse 18, but in a reversed form. Verse 18 affirms that 
freedom from sin is slavery to righteousness; verse 20 affirms 
that freedom from righteousness is slavery to sin. ove] de- 
notes a time gone by. The slavery to sin is not in the pres- 
ent, but in the past. St. Paul thanks God for this fact 
(verse 17). yap] connects this verse with the preceding, as 
a part of the total explanation of the statement in verse 18. 
€AevJepor.] In proportion as the will is surrendered to sin, it 
is released from holiness. It is not free from holiness as 
matter of right, but as matter of fact: as when we say, 
“free from disease,” or ‘free from pain.” When viewed 
ethically, however, as a question of right, and not of fact 
merely, this kind of freedom is found to be a false freedom. 
Man has no right to it, and to have it is guilt. This proves 
that it is only a spurious liberty. Real and true freedom is 
something that man needs not to be ashamed of; something 
which he is obligated to have, and the possession of which is 
praiseworthy. 


True liberty always with right reason dwells 
Twinn’d, and from her hath no dividual being.” 
PARADISE Lost, xii. 83. * 


This difference between freedom in sin, and freedom in holi- 
ness, is referred to by Christ, in John viii. 32-36. The free- 
dom of the will, in our Lord’s use of the term in this pas- 
sage, is simply the inclination of the will. Whoever is 
inclined is ¢pso facto free, be the inclination right or wrong. 
But, holy inclination is trwe freedom (dvrws éAevJepor, John 
viii, 36), because it agrees with the prescript of the moral 
law. Sinful inclination (which is as really inclination as 
holy inclination) is false freedom, because it conflicts with 
8 


170 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


r Sted @ a > yi \ \ X f- 3 , 
tote éh ois viv érratoyiverte; TO wev yap TédoOS Exei- 
Y , 22 \ we L Sesy a ¢ 
vov Jdavaros. vuvi dé éhevdepwdévTes amo THs apap- 


the moral law, and is forbidden by it. But the law never 
forbids the real, and the true; only the unreal, and the false. 


Ver. 21. St. Paul strengthens his exhortation to yield the 
members to righteousness, by a reference to the conse- 
quences of the contrary course. Two views of the structure 
of the verse are possible: 1. The interrogation ends with 
tore, and the remaining clause contains the answer (Theo- 
doret, Luther, Melanch., De Wette, Tholuck, Olshausen, 
Lachmann, Tischendorf). 2. The interrogation ends with 
erauryuverde (Chrys., Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wetstein, Ben- 
gel, Fritzsche, Winer, Meyer, Murdock’s Peshito, Eng. Ver.). 
This latter arrangement, which is preferable, requires either 
éxeivwv, or ey Tovtois, to be supplied before é@' ois. Kkapmov] 
gain, or advantage. é¢'| “over,” or “on account of.” 
éraisyiverJe| This word gives, indirectly, a part of the an- 
swer to the question which, by the punctuation we have 
adopted, receives no direct answer. If they were ashamed 
of yielding their members to impurity, they obtained no 
advantage. téedos|] This clause indirectly gives the remain- 
der of the answer, and the most important part of it. The 
final termination of such conduct being endless perdition, 
there can be no xaprés. Idvaros| is the contrary of fy aid- 
vios in verse 22, to which it is antithetic. See comment on 
Wve AR. 


Ver. 22. vi] now, as Christians, i. e. ehevIepwIevres| the 
same description of believers as that in verse 18, and involv- 
ing the same view of the will. See comment on verse 18. 
dovrludetes TO Jed| See the explanation of edovkdIyre rH diKat- 
oovvn, inverse 18. St. Paul is not shy of the unusual phrase, 
“slavery to righteousness.” This is the fourth time he has 


CHAPTER VI. 98. 171 

LY 

tias, dovrAwIévTes OE TA Jed, EyeTE TOV KapTTOV UpaV Ets 
€ , \ \ , \ 7 23 N \ ? , 

dyacpov, TO Sé Tédos Cwnv aidvov. “Ta yap oavia 


used it. His favorite title, as descriptive of himself, is dodA0s 
Xpiorod. Rom. i. 1; 1 Cor. vii. 22; 2 Cor. x. 7; Gal. i. 10; 
Phil. 1,1; Tit. i. 1, et alia. Compare also minz 723, Josh. 
xxiv. 29; Job i. 8; Ps. ev. 6; Jer. xxxiii. 21, et alia. is] 
denotes the tendency of the kaprds. d:yaopov| as in verse 19. 
téhos| denotes the termination of the xapzds. Liberation 
from sin and subjection to righteousness tends to perfect 
sanctification, and ends in eternal felicity. wv] compre- 
hends all good, in relation to body, soul, and spirit. aidveov] 
denotes endlessness, here; because of the nature of the atwv 
spoken of. The Scriptures know of but two aidves. the 
present aidsv, and the future aidv; 6 viv aiwv, and aidv 6 pedAwv 
(Mat. xii. 32; Luke xvi. 8; Heb. vi. 5; Eph. i. 21). The 
doctrine of an indefinite series of aidves, or cycles, is Gnostic 
and not Biblical. Christianity recognizes but two ages, or 
worlds: the temporal and the eternal. Accordingly, in 
Scripture, anything that is aidvos belongs either to one 
world, or the other; either to the present temporal age 
(Philemon, 15), or to the future endless age (2 Cor. v. 1). 
The Gy here spoken of is, indisputably, a good that belongs 
to the future aidv, and will therefore endure as long as that 
does. Since wy in this verse is the antithesis to Javaros in 
verse 21, the epithet aiwvios belongs to the latter also, though 
it is not expressed. The “death” occurs in the same future 
aidv with the “life.” Both have precisely the same duration; 
and the duration is endless because the future ‘‘age” or 
“world” is endless. 


Ver. 23. yap] introduces further proof in corroboration of 
the doctrine taught in verses 21 and 22. dyava] “rations” 
(dor: cooked meat). The word looks back to dzAa, in verse 


172 _ COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


a e / 4 \ \ / la) a \ Dik. 
THS adpaptias Jdvatos, TO 5é yaptopa Tod Jeod fwH aiayvios 
ev Xpict@ Inood To Kupi@ juav. 


13. Sin, unlike holiness, originates solely in the finite will. 
God does not “‘ work” in man “to will and to do” (Phil. ii. 
2; Eph. ii. 20; Coloss. i. 29), when man transgresses the 
moral law. Consequently, sin is absolute demerit or guilt, 
and its recompense is “wages,” in the strict sense. The 
sinner, if he pleased, could demand eternal death as his due 
upon principles of exact. justice. He has earned it by his 
own action alone. tis dwaprias|] sin personified pays wages 
for military service. Jdvaros|] as in verses 16 and 21. The 
adjective aiwvios is omitted with Jdvaros, because it is ex- 
pressed with its antithesis Go»; in accordance with the gram- 
matical principle, that when two clauses are antithetic to 
each other, an epithet may be suggested in the first clause 
by its expression in the second, or suggested in the second 
clause by its expression in the first. The epithet aiwvos is 
expressed with xoAaots and wvp, in Mat. xxv. 41,46. xdpupa] 
St. Paul does not say éWwvia tis duxaroovvys, as the antithesis 
of éfovia THs dpaprias; because the imputed righteousness of 
a believer is a gratuity, and his inherent righteousness is the 
product of the Holy Spirit moving and inclining his will. 
Righteousness, unlike sin, is not self-originated, and conse- 
quently its reward must be gracious, and only relatively 
merited. The recompense of righteousness is xdépicpa, and 
not é6~wva, ey Xpicrd| in Christ, as both the ground and the 
cause. Only as man is one with Christ, is this gift of eter- 
nal life possible. 


CHAPTER VII. 


**H ayvoeite, aderdol, (ywwooKkovaw yap vopwov ado) 
OTL 0 vom“os KUpLEever TOD aVIpwTov ep daov xpdvov FH ; 
Be \ ef \ a a bd \ f , \ 

» yap Uravdpos yur TH FavTe avdpi Séderar vopw: éav 
5é amodavy Oo avijp, KaTHpynTaL amo TOV Vvomov TOU ar- 


Ver. 1. St. Paul continues the consideration of the con- 
nection between justification and sanctification, which he 
began in chapter vi.1. He does so, by still further explain- 
ing the assertion made in vi. 14, that believers “are not 
under law but under grace.” He illustrates by the marriage 
relation. 7 dyvoetre| compare vi. 3. ddeAgot] all Christians, 
ij. 13; xii. 10. vopov] the Old Testament law; which, as the 
base from which the gospel proceeded, was known by Gen- 
tile as well as Jewish Christians. dvIpwrov] is generic: in- 
cluding woman as well as man, the female as well as male. 
This is plain from verse 2, where it is asserted in illustration 
of the legal principle that ‘man is bound by the law as long 
as he lives,” that “the woman is bound by the law.” See 
the explanation of évJpw7os in v. 12. 


Ver. 2. yap] introduces a proof of the proposition in verse 
1, derived from the marriage relation. 6Séderar] has been, and 
still is bound. vou] the Mosaic law, yet as agreeing with 
the law of nature, in this case. Karypyntac| in the active, 
signifies to nullify; in the passive, to free from. Compare 
vi. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 11. In the illustration, the woman stands 
for the believer, and the first husband for the law. 


174 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


8 , 3s» 5 fal ar 2S Ni \ / 

pos. °* apa ovv Cavtos Tod avdpos poryadis ypnuaTices, 
2\ li ’ \ € Ne 2K \ ’ / ¢ > / > 

€av yevntar avopi éetépm: éav bé atroddvy Oo avyp, édev- 
Jépa éotiv amd Tod vomov, TOU pi civar avTHY pworyanrioa 
yevouevnv avdpi étépw. ‘ date, AdEAhot ov, Kal duets 
edavatwInre TH vouw Sia TOD copuatos Tod Xpiatod, eis 
TO yevéotdar tuas étépw, TO ex vexpav éyepIevTi, Wa 


VER. 3. dpa oty] “accordingly, then.” Compare vy. 18. 
xenparice.| Shall be “formally denominated,” or “styled.” 
Acts xi. 26. yévyta] to “belong to,” as the wife to the 
husband. Compare 2 Cor. xi. 2; Eph. v. 25 sq. 


Ver. 4. dore] is illative: ‘ wherefore.” Compare Mat. xii. 


31. Kat tpets| “ye too,” like the woman, in verse 2, éJava- 
todyre| the aorist signification is to be retained: ‘ ye became 
dead to the law” (when ye believed, i. e.), so that the law no 
longer kvpiever (verse 1). If the figure had been regularly 
carried out, the writer would have said that the law became 
dead. The Receptus reading, aroJavévros, in verse 6, would 
favor this. 1@ vouw] The Mosaic law both ceremonial and 
moral, but eminently the latter. owmaros] the body offered 
as an tAaorypuov, Rom. iii. 25. Through the instrumentality of 
Christ’s atonement, in reference to which the believer has 
been baptized as the sign of his faith (vi. 3), he is dead to 
the law considered as a means of justification, and the law is 
dead to him. So far as forgiveness and acceptance with God 
are concerned, the believer and the law have no more to do 
with one another, than one corpse has to do with another. 
eis 70] indicates the purpose of this deadness to the law. 
The justification is in order to sanctification. yevéoda] as 
in verse 8. The marriage union is the emblem of the spir- 
itual union between Christ and the believer. Isa. Ixii. 5; 
Eph. v. 23-32. éyepSevre] union with Christ in his atoning 
death, involves union with him in his resurrection. See 


CHAPTER VII. 5. 175 


, A a o i a 
Kaptropopycwpyev TH Jew. * OTe yap uev ev TH capKi, 
TA TAINLATA TOV GwapTi@v TA dua TOU VoOmou EevnpyeiTo év 


comment on vi. 3-5. Kapzopopyjcwpev| the figure of mar- 
riage is still kept up. Faith in atoning blood is fruitful of 
good works. 


Ver. 5 contains a confirmation of the preceding statement 
respecting the believer’s fruitfulness in holiness, by a refer- 
ence to the effect of the Jaw upon an unbeliever. The former 
is freed from the curse of the law, and for this reason obeys 
the law from love, with spontaneity, and gladness of heart. 
The latter is under the curse of the law, and by reason of 
servile fear, and the bondage of his will, is driven more and 
more into sin. For him, “the law is the strength (instead 
of the destruction) of sin,” 1 Cor. xv. 56. dre] implies a 
state of things that has passed away. Compare vi. 17, 20, 
21; vil. 9. oapxi| here denotes: 1. the entire man, as 
“spirit, soul, and body” (1 Thess. v. 23); and 2. the entire 
man as corrupt. Compare Rom. iv. 1; vi. 19; vii. 18, 25; viii. 
5, 5; 2 Cor. x. 3, et alia. The phrase év capxi is equivalent 
to the “natural man” of 1 Cor. ii. 14. wadSnpara] “ pas- 
sions:” from patior. Both the mental and the physical 
passions are marked by a degree of passiveness. They are 

‘the effects of exciting and stimulating objects, to which the 
soul and body supinely yield. The English version renders 
the word by “motions,” in the sense of “ 
“drugs, or minerals, that waken motion,” Othello, i. 2. 
Cogan (On the Passions, i. 1) thus defines: ‘ Emotions, ac- 
cording to the genuine signification of the word, are the 
sensible and visible effects which particular passions produce 
upon the frame, in consequence of some particular agitation 
of the mind.” dpaptidv| the plural denotes the acts, in dis- 
tinction from the principle of sin. See the analysis in James 


emotions: ” 


176 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 
we 


al , € oO ’ MY an A if 6 ‘ 

Tots MENETLY NUBY Eis TO KapTropopical TO Javat@:* ° vuvi 
lal . 

dé KaTnpyjdnwev ard ToD vopou, arodavovtes ev @ Ka- 


i. 15, where the principle of sin is denominated émIvpia, and 
the particular act duapria, dia Tov vduov] through the law as 
an occasional (not efficient) cause. The explanation of this 
important statement is given, at length, by the Apostle, in 
vii. 7-13. évnpyetro| “energized:” the passions, or emotions, 
operate inwardly and dynamieally. év rots] in them as the- 
seat, and by them as the instruments. péAeow] includes the 
mental faculties, as well as the bodily organs. The sinful 
passions, or emotions, operate in and by the human under- 
standing and the human will, as well as in and by the fleshly — 
members and the five senses., Envy, malice, emulation, pride, 
and avarice, are “ passions,” in St. Paul’s sense, equally with 
the physical appetites that show themselves in gluttony, 
drunkenness, and fornication. All are alike the ‘‘ motions 
of sin.” See the comment on vi. 13. Kaprogopyaa| is cor- 
relative to the same word in verse 4. The figure of marriage 
is stillin view. Javdétw] the dative of advantage. 


Ver. 6. vuvi] is opposed to dre in verse 5. It denotes the 
present believing and justified state. xarnpy7Inwev| See com- 
ment on verse 2. dz Tod vopov] the believer is delivered from 
the law as penalty, and as the instrument of justification. 
droJavovres| is the reading of SABCL Erasmus, Mill, Griesb., 
Scholz, Hahn, Lachm., Tisch. The English Version, Elzevir, 
and Beza read drodavévros. The first is preferable diplomati- 
cally and logically, though not rhetorically ; as it does not 
carry out the figure in verse 1. As the law stands for the 
first husband, the law should die, rather than the woman, 
who stands for the believer. But St. Paul may have wished 
to avoid the phrase: “death of the law.” He has previously 
said that believers die to the law, in verse 4. év 6| i. e., Tovrw 


CHAPTER VIL. 6. LV 


, e lA (a! ? re 4 \ 
TEeryomeda, WaoTE SovrAEVELW Twas ev KaLVOTHTL TVEDMATOS Kal 
OU TANALOTNTL Ypadupartos. 


év @; the reference is to the antecedent rod vouov. Karetxo- 
peda] the law as condemning and pronouncing a curse 
“holds down,” and keeps under, the criminal, as in a dun- 
geon. Compare i. 18, where the criminal is represented as 
holding down the truth, and keeping it underneath. This 
latter suppression differs from the former, by being only 
temporary ; because it is a “holding down in unrighteous- 
ness ;” the former is a holding down in righteousness. 
aore| denotes the actual effect, or consequence. The death 
to the law, and deliverance from it, result in a more perfect 
and better obedience of the law, instead of a ‘‘ continuance 
in sin,” vi. 1, 15. dovAevew] the present tense denotes con- 
stant and habitual action. «awédryrt] the obedience that is 
rendered to the law by the believer is that of a ‘new 
creature ” (2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15) and of a ‘new man” 
(Col. iti. 10; Eph. ii. 15). It is “new,” also, in respect to 
the principle from which it flows: viz., love instead of fear, 
which was the old principle (Ezek. xi. 19; xxxvi. 26). In 
2 Cor. x. 5, it is denominated “the obedience of Christ.” 
mvevpatos| denotes, here, not the Holy Spirit, which is never 
a “new” spirit, but the human spirit enlightened, enlivened, 
and actuated by the divine: a new spirit in man, compared 
with the previous one. Service that originates in “ newness 
of spirit ” is spontaneous, genial, and free (é« xapdias, vi. 17). 
Such being the nature of the obedience rendered by one who 
has ‘died with Christ for sin,” and has “ become dead to the 
law by the body of Christ,” it is plain that there is nothing 
licentious, or antinomian, in the doctrine of vicarious atone- 
ment. madaryti] the legal precedes the evangelical (1 Cor. 
xv. 46); the “natural man” is the “old man” (Rom. vi. 6; 
Hph. iv. 22; Col. iii. 9). ypapparos] denotes the law in its 
g* 


173 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


written and external form. Compare Rom. ii. 20; 2 Cor. 
iii. 6. Service that is performed in the “oldness of the let- 
ter” originates in fear instead of love, in spasmodic struggle 
instead of living impulse, in volitionary effort instead of in- 
ward inclination, has reference merely to the letter instead 
of the intent of the law, is forced out by the threat and 
penalty of the law instead of drawn out by its excellence 
and beauty (Ps. cxix. 97). These two kinds of obedience 
are exact contraries. In the one case, the law is external to 
the will: it is written on the heart (Rom. ii. 15), but not znto 
the heart (Jer. xxxi. 33). Consequently, the obedience is 
mechanical and false. In the other case, the law through 
regeneration is internal to the will: is no longer a threat but 
an impulse; no longer a statute but a force (Ps. xxxvii. 31; 

poles 3. so i.; 77). Consequently, the obedience is vital ands 
real. In the moralist and legalist, will and conscience are 
separate and antagonistic. in the believer, they are one and 
harmonious. 


Ver. 7 begins a new paragraph, which raises an objection 
suggested by the words ra d:a Tod vowou évypyetro, in verse 5 of 
the preceding paragraph, and replies to it. The reply con- 
stitutes another proof, in addition to that already given, that 
justification is necessarily connected with sanctification, and 
that they who are trusting in Christ’s vicarious atonement 
cannot ‘continue in sin that grace may abound,” y. 1. The 
paragraph is divided into two sections: the first, consisting 
of verses 7-13, which describes the unbeliever, first as uncon- 
victed (status securitatis), and then as under conviction (sta- 
tus sub lege); the second, consisting of verses 14-25, which 
delineates the experience of the believer contending victori- 
ously with remaining depravity (status regenerationis). Au- 
gustine, Luther, Calvin, Pareus, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Wolfius, 
Owen, Delitzsch, Philippi, Haldane, and Hodge take this 


CHAPTER VII. 7. 179 


1 Ty > = ar © ’ e , \ L > \ 

“ ovv épodpev ; 0 vdmos awaptia; pm) yévottTo* adda 

THY awaptiav ovK éyvav et pn Sia VOooU* THY TE Yap ETTL- 
/ b v > \ € lé »- > ? / 

Supiav ovK joe, ef pr) 0 vowos EdXeyev Ov« érrudupyjoess * 


view. The opposite view, which refers the entire paragraph 
to the unregenerate, but in a convicted and transitional 
state, is supported by Chrysostom, the Arminian exegetes 
generally, Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, Tholuck, Hengsten- 
berg, Neander, Nitzsch, Miiller, Stuart. 7¢ ovv épotpev]| intro- 
duces the new objection, as in ili. 9; iv. 1; vi. 1,15. 6 voyos 
Gwaptia;| is the law, in its very nature and essence, sin? It 
is stronger than dyaprias dudkovos, in Gal. ii. 17. ada] intro- 
duces the exactly contrary position: “on the contrary, I,” 
etc. tiv duapriay]| the article is specific: the principle of sin, 
* originated in the manner described in v. 12 sq., latent in 
every man (v. 14), and elicited by temptation alluring and 
law prohibiting. éyvwv| the ‘aorist signification is to be re- 
tained: “I had not known,” in the days of unbelief, i. e.; 
the time denoted by zoré, in verse 9. The omission of dy 
with both gvev and yew strengthens the conditional force 
of the verbs, making the affirmation more positive (Winer, 
p- 305). The knowledge meant is that of clear and painful 
consciousness: what is technically denominated “ conviction 
of sin.” «i py] supply éyvwv. vopov] the Old Testament 
written law, which, however, includes natural ethics. St. 
Paul, in this passage, is describing his own past experience, 
as representative of that of every convicted person, either 
Jew or Gentile, under revelation or outside of it. The appli- 
cation of the unwritten as well as the written law, elicits the 
sense of sin (ii. 15). ze] “even:” it qualifies pdev- “for, 
lust I should not have even known, still less, have resisted, 
unless,” etc. ézuIvuiav| lust generically: mental as well as 
physical, yet with a reference to bodily appetite, as that 
species of forbidden evil desire which is most patent to 


180 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


human observation. The catalogue of lusts, both physical 
and mental, is given in Gal. v. 16-21. Fletcher, in his Pur- 
ple Island (Canto vii.), has analysed and delineated each. 
See, also, Eph. ii. 3, where af éruJupiae are characterized as 
voluntary inclination (JeAjpara); and are classified as ‘“ de- 
sires of the flesh, and of the mind.” Compare, also, 2 Tim. 
iil. 6, 7; iv. 3, where the hankering after false doctrine, and 
the itch for sensational preaching, are placed among the 
“lusts.” That émJvuia is truly and properly sin, is proved 
by the interchange, in this verse, between it and dpapria, 
St. Paul regards the two as synonymes. The clause éruSupuiap 
odk Hoe is the equivalent of the preceding dmapriav od éyvuv. 
To “know lust” is the same’thing as to ‘know sin.” That 
lust is sin, is proved, also, by the prohibition of it in the 
tenth commandment. The moral law forbids nothing but 
sin; and the closing statute in the decalogue forbids inward 
lust. The Lawgiver, having in previous statutes prohibited 
particular forms of sin, as exhibited in particular acts of 
transgression,—theft, adultery, murder,—finally sums up all 
individual sins under the one generic denomination of “lust,” 
because all have their source and root in evil desire. Com- 
pare James i. 14, 15. The Septuagint translates tianr=sad 
(Exod. xx. 17) by ov« émdupyjoces. The English version: 
“Thou shalt not covet,” is inadequate, because covetousness 
now denotes only one form of lust. Upon the meaning of 
the tenth commandment as understood by St. Paul in this 
place, Rivetus (Explicatio Decalogi, vers. xv.) remarks: 
‘‘Patet Paulum extendere preeceptum ad eam concupiscen- 
tiam, adversus quam Spiritus pugnat (Gai. v. 17), que re- 
pugnat legi mentis (Rom. vii. 23), quam mens regenita non 
approbat (vii. 15), quam non vult (vii. 16, 19). Ham tamen 
expresst peccatum dicit. Nam quinquies (vii. 13, 14, 17, 20, 
21) peccatum appellat legem in membris suis rebellantem, et 
obnoxium eum reddentem legi peceati.” Respecting the ~ 


CHAPTER VII. 7. 181 


relation of Just to the will, Rivetus remarks that ‘ concu- 
piscentia est inclinatio voluntaria.” ‘‘The concupiscence 
forbidden in the tenth commandment,” says Leighton (Ex- 
position of the Ten Commandments), “is an inordinate 
desire, or the least beginning of such a desire. This com- 
mandment is broken by the least envious look upon any 
good of others, or the least bendings of the mind after it for 
ourselves, and by that common mischief of self-love, as the 
very thing that gives life to all such undue desires, and by 
that common folly of discontent at our own estate, which 
begets a wishing for that of others. This very concupis- 
cence itself, though it proceed no further than the rising of 
it in the mind, pollutes and leaves a stain behind it.” Simi- 
larly Owen (Saints’ Perseverance, Ch. xv.) remarks, that 
“though a man should abstain from all actual sins, or open 
commission of sin, all his days, yet if he have any habitual 
delight in sin, and defileth his soul with delightful contem- 
plations of sin, he liveth to sin and not to God, which a 
believer cannot do, for he is ‘not under law, but under 
grace.’ To abide in this state, is to ‘wear the garment 
spotted with the flesh.” The term émJvpia sometimes, but 
not often, denotes holy desire, as in Gal. v.17; Luke xxii. 
15. ov« emIvunoes| The negative form of the law is always 
exasperating. It implies an existing inclination contrary to 
law, and sets up a barrier against it. It is the form of law 
for fullen creatures. “The law [in this negative form] is 
not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and dis- 
obedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners,” 1 Tim. i. 9. 
Hence, the “Thou shalt not,” awakens the consciousness of 
inward and slumbering lust; and, “ by the law, is the knowl- 
edge of sin,” iii. 20. This examination of the operation of 
the law makes it plain that the law is not sin (verse 7). 
That which detects and prohibits sin, cannot be of the 
nature of sin. 


182 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. . 


* apopuny O€ AaBotca 4 dpwaptia Sia THs évTods KaTELp- 
ydoaTo év éuol Tacay éTiudupiav. Ywpis yap vouov apap- 


Ver. 8 continues the explanation, with the introductory 
particle d& ddopyyv] from do and épydw.: a departure; a 
start, rather than an “ occasion” (Eng. Ver.). The simple 
nisus of the willis meant. ‘Sin taking a start, wrought,” 
etc. % duwapria] sin in the form of inward lust (é7uJupta), and 
showing itself, after its start, in the passions or emotions 
(raJnpara) spoken of in verse 5. 61a THs évtoAjs| is best con- 
nected with xarepyacaro (Bengel, De Wette, Fritzsche, Meyer, 
Tholuck), Compare 8.4 tot éyadov KarépyaCouévy, in verse 13. 
Meyer asserts that ddoppyyv AaPetv is never connected with da, 
but often with éx. 77s évtoAns| the article denotes the par- 
ticular tenth commandment, ov« émudupyceis. Kateypyacato| is 
supported by SACFGL Rec., Lachm,; carnpyacaro is the read- 
ing of BDE Tisch. The preposition is intensive: “wrought 
out.” mdacov| anarthrous: ‘every kind of;” lust in all the va- 
rieties of its emotions (zaInpara, ver. 5). The law produces 
this irritating and stimulating effect, it must be observed, 
only in those who are év 77) capxi (verse 5): only in the unre- 
generate. In the unbeliever (who has not died and been 
intombed with Christ with respect to his atoning death, and 
risen again with him to newness of life), conscience and will 
are antagonistic (vill. 7). As a consequence, the moral law 
terrifies him by its threat of punishment, and irritates him 
by its strict requirement. Law is hateful and exasperating 
to all who do not love it; and in this way is the occasional 
cause of sin. Ovid (Amorum, iii. 4) notices this effect of 
the law: ‘‘ Desine vitia irritare vetando. Nitimur in veti- 
tum semper, cupimusque negata.” Horace also: “ Audax 
omnia perpeti gens humana ruit per vetitum nefas” (Carmi- 
num, i. 3). Compare Livy, xxxiv. 4; Seneca, De Clementia, 
i. 23; Euripidis, Medea, 1077. xXwpis] “separate and apart 


CHAPTER VII. 9. 183 


from.” Lachmann’s punctuation is preferable, which places 
only a comma between this clause and verse 9, because vexpa 
is antithetic to élwv. yap] looks back to the assertion in 
verse 7, “I had not known sin but by the law.” ‘ For, 
apart from the law,” etc. voyov] anarthrous: law generally; 
as this is a general truth. dyapria] supply éorw (not jv), as 
no particular time is intended. vexpa] unconvicted: without 
remorse (Chrys., Calvin, Olsh.); inactive (Tholuck, Meyer). 
The first is preferable. Sin was active, because it had taken 
a start and wrought all manner of concupiscence (verse 8); 
but it was not known in painful self-consciousness. vexpa 
certainly cannot have the absolute meaning which it has in 
James ii. 17, 26; Heb. ix. 14. Only a seeming death is 
meant; like the death of sleep. Compare Shakspeare’s: 
“We were dead of sleep,” Tempest, v. 1. 


Ver. 9. éyo dé] in contrast with dueptia: “sin apart from 
law is dead, but I was alive.” wv] 1. I seemed, to myself, 
to live (August., Erasmus, Calvin). 2. I was without fear 
or apprehension (Melanch., Beza, Bengel). Both explana- 
tions are kindred, and should be combined. It is a seeming 
life, antithetic to the seeming death of sin in the preced- 
ing verse. The enjoyment of sin, and the absence of re- 
morse, make up a false and counterfeit life which is the char- 
acteristic of the unconvicted sinner. ‘ Absentia legis facie- 
bat, ut viviret, hoc est, inflatus justitia suz fiducia, vitam 
sibi arrogaret, quum tamen esset mortuus.” Calvin in loco. 
The life intended here, in wv, is the same with that ex- 
pressed in the second member of the epicure’s dictum: 
* dum vivimus, vivamus,” or in the common phrases: “ high 
life,” and “seeing life.” Xwpis] here, as in the preceding 
clause, is used in a qualified sense only. In the strict sense, 
neither sin nor the sinner can be separated from law. Wher- 
ever there is sin and a sinner, there is law (iv. 15; v. 13). 


184 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


tla vexpd,|*® éyo 5é ewv yopls vouou moré* éXJovons 
dé THs evToARs 7 aywaptia avéfyoev, “ eyw dé amédavov, 


But there is not always the distinct consciousness of the 
claims of the law; and in this sense, sin and the sinner are 
separate and apart from the law. But this separation can 
be only temporary. roré] “formerly:” in the days of unre- 
generacy and unbelief, when sin was enjoyment without 
remorse or fear. This word is important, showing that this 
false and seeming life is not the writer’s present moral state. 
It is an “old thing” that has “ passed away ” (2 Cor. v. 17). 
éhJovons] “coming” into my consciousness. The law has 
been away (x#pis) from consciousness, and now returns. 
Compare the common phrase: “He has come to;” descrip- 
tive of recovery from the Ioss of consciousness in a fainting- 
fit, or swoon. Compare Luke xv. 17. The position of 
eXJovons is highly emphatic: the energy and onset with 
which the law comes in, and bears down upon the previous- 
ly happy and careless soul, are expressed by the collocation. 
THs éevro\js| viz.: “thou shalt not lust” (verse 7). The 
tenth commandment is more searching, and productive of 
the consciousness of sin, than either the sixth, seventh, or 
eighth, because it goes behind the outward act, to the secret 
and inward desire. . Hence, our Lord, in his interpretation 
and application of the moral law in the Sermon on the 
Mount, discussed sin chiefly in the form of evil desire (Mat. 
v. 20-24). “He asserts, that the inmost thoughts of the 
heart, and the first motions of concupiscence therein, though 
not consented to, much less actually accomplished in the out- 
ward deeds of sin, and all the occasions leading unto them, 
are directly forbidden in the law. This he doth in his holy 
exposition of the seventh commandment. He declares the 
penalty of the law, on the least sin, to be hell fire, in his 
assertion of causeless anger to be forbidden in the sixth 


CHAPTER VII. 10. 185 


commandment.” Owen, On Justification, Ch. xvii. dvely- 
cev| revived from that state denominated vexpa, in verse 3. 
As the “ death” of sin alluded to is the absence of the pain- 
ful conviction of sin, so the “reviving” of sin, here intended, 
is the presence of such conviction. 


Ver. 10. 8¢] denotes a contrast in dréJarov to avélyoer. 
But the contrast is verbal only, and not logical and real; 
because the “reviving” of sin in consciousness is the same 
thing, essentially, with the “death” here spoken of. Re- 
morse is a main element in spiritual death. d7éJavov] does 
not imply that previously he was not dead, any more than 
the reviving of sin implies that previously there had been no 


sin. As the “coming” 


of the commandment brought him 
to the consciousness of a sin that was latent, so it brought 
him to the consciousness of a death that was already within 
him, and resting upon him. Compare John ii. 18. This 
text proves that spiritual death is not annihilation, because 
it implies consciousness. Physical death, confessedly, is not 
annihilation. It is only a peculiar mode of existence. In 
1 Cor. xv. 36, and John xii. 24, the physical “‘ death” of the 
corn of wheat is not the extinction of its substance, but the 
metamorphosis of it. Spiritual death, in like manner, sup- 
poses existence; because it is a vivid and distressing experi- 
ence. Compare Luke xvi. 23-27; Mat. xxv. 30; 1 Thess. iv. 
13; 1 Tim. v. 6; Rev. iii. 3; xx.10. Both spiritual life and 
spiritual death imply a spiritual substance existing in the 
highest degree of energetic action, and possessing conscious- 
ness at its greatest intensity. The one is conscious blessed- 
ness; and the other is conscious misery. e«tpedy] “ found:” 
not originally constituted so by the divine arrangement. 
Compare éyévero in verse 13. The death which has been 
spoken of as resulting from the moral law, is the conse- 
quence of human action, and not of the design of God in 


186 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Kat evpédn por 4 evTorAH 1 eis Conv, attn els Javarov. 
"a yap duaptia apoppnv NaBodoa Sua THs éevToAHs €&nrd- 
Tnoév pe Kal OL avTHs améxtewev. “” WaoTE O peV VOMOS 


laying down the moral law. is wyv] the original aim and 
object of the divine command is life, and not death; happi- 
ness, and not misery. avry| “even this,” in itself consid- 
ered, beneficent thing. «is Jdvarov| the actual, but not pri- 
marily designed result. See the author’s discourse upon, 
“The original and the actual relation of man to law.” Ser- 
mons to the Natural Man, pp. 231-248. 


Ver. 11. yap] introduces the explanation of the statement 
in the preceding verse. ddpopyyv] See comment on verse 8. 
dua THs évtoAjs] is connected with ééyrdryce: the command- 
ment is the occasional cause. éfyrérycév| The convicted 
man betakes himself to the law, expecting by it to obtain 
life and blessedness. Instead of this, he “finds,” by it, only 
death and misery. See Gal. ii. 1-3, 21; v. 2-4. This, the 
apostle represents as a deception by the law; though, in 
reality, it is the sinner’s self-deception. The deception in 
the case is two-fold. 1. The law curses and condemns the 
transgressor, instead of pardoning him, Gal. i. 10. 2. The 
law elicits and exasperates, instead of removing his sin, 
Rom. iii. 20. Neither the guilt nor the pollution of sin is 
removable by the law; yet, man mistakenly hopes for its 
removal by means of “the works of the law,” i. e., personal 
attempts at obedience. airs] “the very law itself,” which 
had been ordained to life. dméxrevey| is suggested by aze- . 
Javov in verse 10. 


Ver. 12. dore| introduces the logical conclusion from the 
reasoning in verses 7-11. A law having such characteristics, 
and operating in such a manner, cannot be sin. jv] implies 
an adversative 6 which is not expressed: “The law, indeed, 


CHAPTER VII. 13. 187 


aylos, Kal 7) evTOAn ayia Kal dixaia Kal aya. “ TO odv 
> X\ >? \ > / wh \ / 2 ? eee ' 
ayasov éuol éyévero Savatos ; 1) yévolrTo, GAN 1} aLapTia, 
A vA nr fa) / 
wa avy apaptia, Sia Tod ayatod pot Katepyafouévn 


is good, but sin misuses it.” vomos] the written Mosaic 
law, but inclusive of the unwritten law. 1% évroAy] denotes 
the particular commandment forbidding evil desire. Three 
distinct and separate epithets are applied to this, while 
only one is applied to the law generally, because this par- 
ticular statute has been spoken of as particularly occasion- 
ing the activity of sin. dyia kai dixala Kai dyaIn|] The cumu- 
lation of the epithets, and their careful connection by the 
copulative, are highly negative to the question, “ Is the law 
sig?” 


Ver. 13 presents another objection, the reply to which is 
a reaffirmation of the excellence of the law. The question 
is equivalent to: Is the law death? corresponding to the 
question in verse 7: Is the law sin? dyadov] this is the last 
of the epithets applied to the law, in the preceding verse. 
éuoi] refers to the apostle as he was zoré (verse 9). He 
would not think of asking such a question in reference to 
himself in his present moral status, as ‘‘a man in Christ 
Jesus.” éyévero] is the reading of SABCDE Lachm., Tisch. 
The Receptus, KL read yéyove. The word denotes a trans- 
formation by gradual development. The question is: Did 
the good law become death, the greatest of evils, by a divine 
arrangement, so that God is the author of this bad result of 
a good thing? yi yévorro] the question is negatived in the 
strongest form. 7 duapria| supply éuou eyévero Javaros. iva] 
denotes God’s purpose and arrangement. avy] is emphatic 
by its position, and refers to the exhibition of the inward 
nature of sin. The object of God is to show forth the 
malignant quality of sin, which converts a good into an evil, 


188 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Sdvatov, va yévntar Ka¥ brrepBorjv apapTwrdos 1) apap- 
Tia Ow THS EVvTOANS. 


apaptia] is the predicate of the verb. Kxarepyafouevy]| the par- 
ticiple assigns a reason: “since it works out.” ta] repeats 
a second time, and with strong emphasis, the divine purpose 
in this arrangement. yévytar] is equivalent to davy in the 
preceding clause, and has a kindred meaning. ‘The devel- 
opment of sin, in the manner that has been deseribed, re- 
veals its exceeding wickedness, 614 THs évtoAjs | is connected 
with yévyrat. By means of the law, as the instrument, the 
disclosure is made. 

The section contained in verses 7-13, as thus interpreted, 
will read as follows, by supplying the ellipses. “ What shall 
we say then [in view of the statement, that the motions of 
sins are by the law]? Is the law [in its very nature] sin? 
God forbid. On the contrary, I had not become. convicted 
of sin, but by the law; for I had not even known lust [to be 
sin], unless the law had said, ‘Thou shalt not lust.’ But 
sin [as a latent and unconscious principle] taking a start, 
wrought in me, through the instrumentality of the law, evil 
desires of every kind. For, without [the disclosures of] the 
law, sin is dead (latent and unconscious); but, I [an uncon- 
victed sinner] was formerly alive (happy and fearless in sin) 
without [the disclosures of] the law. But when the com- 
mandment came [to my consciousness], sin revived (became 
remorse); but I died [with fear of death and hell], and the 
law, ordained to life [for a holy being], I [a sinner] found 
to be unto death. For, sin taking a start [as already said], 
deceived me through the commandment [by suggesting jus- 
tification by works], and slew me [with pangs of conscience, 
and fears of perdition]. So that the law is [neither sin, nor 
death, but] holy, just, and good. Does it follow, then, that 
that which is good [in its own nature] was made death to 


CHAPTER VII. 14. ' 189 


me [by God’s agency]? God forbid. [On the contrary, 
this must be charged upon sin.] For, sin [became death to 
me], in order that it might be seen to be [dreadful and 
malignant] sin, since it works death by means of a law that 
is good and beneficent.” 


Verses 14-25 contain still further proof that the law, in its 
own nature, is neither sin nor death, by a reference to the 
experience of the deliever. Having evinced this, in the pre- 
ceding section, by examining the experience of the unregen- 
erate, both as unconvicted and convicted, St. Paul now turns 
to the experience of the regenerate. The sudden and strik- 
ing change, in verse 14, and continuing through the entire 
section, from the past to the present tense, together with 
more in verse 9, indicates this. Calvin’s statement of the re- 
lation of Rom. vii. 1-18 to vii. 14-25 is as follows: “ Initio, 
nudam nature et legis comparationem proponit apostolus. 
Deinde exemplum proponit hominis regenerati: in quo sic 
carnis reliquiz cum lege Domini dissident, ut spiritus ei 
libenter obtemperet.” Calvin ad Romanos, vii. 14. 

The clue to the meaning of this important and disputed 
section is in Owen’s remark (Holy Spirit, III. vi.), that “in 
the unregenerate convicted man, the conflict is merely be- 
tween the mind and conscience on the one hand, and the 
will on the other. The will is still absolutely bent on sin, 
only some head is made against its inclinations by the light 
of the mind before sin, and rebukes of conscience after it. 
But in the case of the regenerate man, the conflict begins to 
be in the will itself. - A new principle of grace having been 
infused thereinto, opposes those habitual inclinations unto 
evil which were before predominant in it. This fills the soul 
with amazement, and in some brings them to the very door 
of despair, because they see not how nor when they shall be 
delivered (vii. 24). So was it with the person instanced in 


190 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


14 \ ev ce , r b] . < bys 
oldapev yap STL O vomos TVEVMAaTLKOS EoTLY* EYw 
oapKwos eipl, TETpapévos VITO THY awapTiav. 


Augustine’s Confessions, VIII. v. ‘The new will, which be- 
gan to-be in me, whereby I would love thee, O my God, the 
only certain sweetness, was not yet able to overcome, per- 
feetly, my former will confirmed by long continuance. So, 
my two wills, the one old, the other new, the one carnal, the 
other spiritual, conflicted between themselves, and rent my 
soul by their disagreement. Then did I understand by ex- 
perience in myself what I had read, how the flesh lusteth 
against the Spirit, and the Spirit lusteth against the flesh. 
I was myself on both sides; but, more in that which I ap- 
proved in myself, than in what I condemned in myself. I 
was not more in that which I condemned, because, for the 
most part, I suffered unwillingly what I did willingly: ac- 
cording to the Apostle’s words, ‘What I hate, that do I. It 
is no more I that do it; but sin that dwelleth in me.’ ” 


Ver. 14. oidapey| it is conceded by all. yap] looks back 
to the affirmation that the law is holy, just, and good, and 
introduces a new proof of the position. avevpariuxds| 1. re- 
quires a spiritual and perfect obedience (Calvin); 2. has 
respect to what is inward and sincere (Beza); 3. is fulfilled 
only by those who are actuated by the Holy Spirit (Tholuck); 
4. is the expression of the Holy Spirit, the absolute zvetua 
(Meyer, Hodge). The last is preferable, as a single defini- 
tion; but it is better to combine all four of these views. 
The idea intended to be suggested by the epithet rvevwaruxds 
is that of absolute and unmixed perfection, in contrast with 
the imperfection of the regenerate man. The moral law is — 
spiritual, simply and purely. There is no méxtwre in it of 
the sensual with the spiritual, of the flesh with the spirit, as 
there is in the character of the believer. Law is nothing but 


CHAPTER VII. 14. 191 


holiness. ‘The law of the Lord is perfect,” Ps. xix. 7. Com- 
pare the “perfect will (law) of God,” Rom, xii. 2. It is 
marked by what Owen (Mortification, Ch. xi.) denominates 
‘the holiness, spirituality, fiery severity, inwardness, abso- 
luteness of the law.” ‘The law is perfect, and bindeth 
every one to full conformity, in the whole man, unto the 
righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience for ever; 
so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to 
forbid the least degree of every sin. It is spiritual, and so 


reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other 


>? 
powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures” 
(Westminster Larger Catechism, 99). éyo de] “But I, on 
the contrary.” The éy®, here, denotes the writer himself in 
his present moral condition, as «ius shows. He looks into 
himself as he now is, and finds in the mixed experience of 
holiness and sin, which he subsequently delineates, a strik- 
ing contrast to the unmixed holiness of the law. The law is 
perfect; he is imperfect. In order to the correct exegesis, 
it is necessary, in the outset, to notice two senses in which 
éy is used, in this section, by St. Paul: 1. conuprehensive ; 
2. limited. The comprehensive éy® denotes the entire per- 
son of the believer, as actuated by both the Holy Spirit, and 
the remainders of the evil principle of sin. The éy® in this. 
sense is complex, and contains a mixture of both the spirit- 
ual and the carnal, in which, however, the spiritual predom- 
inates. The limited éy, on the other hand, denotes the per- 
son of the believer only as actuated by the Holy Spirit, 
omitting and excluding the workings of remaining sin. 
The instances of this latter signification are only two: viz., 
éy® in verses 17 and 20 qualified by otxers. This limited eyo 
is also described, in verse 22, as 6 éow évSpwros, and in verses 
23 and 25, as & vdpos tod vods. The comprehensive éy® 1n- 
cludes the limited éyo plus the remnants of the old sinful 
nature; the limited éy® includes only the new principle of 


192 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


holiness mines these remnants. The former is a complex of 
grace and sin; the latter is grace simply and only. It is 
evident, that not all that is predicable of the former ego may 
be predicated of the latter. In verse 16, St. Paul attributes 
a sin to the comprehensive éyw which, in verse 17, he asserts 
is not committed by the limited éy#. In verse 20, he repeats 
the statement. odpxwds] This is the reading of SABCDEFG 
Griesb., Lachm., Scholz, Tisch. The Receptus reads capxixos. 
In classical usage, odpxuwés is rather physical, than mental, in 
its signification. “ Words with the termination in tds desig- 
nate the substance of which anything is made; thus Jvivos, 
of thyine wood (Rev. xviii. 12), taAwos, of glass (Rev. iv. 6). 
One of these is oapxvds, the only form of the word which 
classical antiquity recognized (capktxés, like the Latin ‘ car- 
nalis,’ having been called out by the ethical necessities of 
the Church), and in 2 Cor. iii, 3 well rendered ‘fleshy:’ that 
is, having flesh for the substance and material of which it is 
made” (Trench’s Synonymes of the New Testament, Second 
Series, § xxii.). If the classical use is insisted upon, then 
capxikos would be a stronger word than odpkxwvds, in this pas- 
sage: the latter referring rather to the body than to the soul, 
and finding the seat of the sin that is charged upon the per- 
son more in his flesh than in his will. In this case, odpkwés 
would, perhaps, allude to the “ vile body” by which the be- 
liever is hampered (Phil. iii. 2). But the use of the two 
words by St. Paul in 1 Cor. iii. 1, 3 (a passage that throws 
much light upon this one) proves that they are interchange- 
able. The same authorities (SABC Griesb., Lachm., Tisch.) 
read gapxivos in 1 Cor. iii. 1, and oapxicof (twice) in 1 Cor. 
ii. 3. But the very same persons are spoken of, in both 
places: showing, as Tischendorf (in loco) remarks, that St. 
Paul employed “ duplicem formam promiscue.” So, Lange. 
This epithet odpxuwds (or capxixds), which the apostle applies 
to himself as descriptive of his moral state at the time cf his 


CHAPTER VII. 14. 193 


writing, determines the interpretation of the whole section. 
It is not the equivalent of YuyiKds. Paul does not say that 
he is a “natural man.” The vyixds dvIpwros is unregener- 
ate. See 1 Cor. ii. 14; Jude 19. The epithet ‘carnal” in 
this passage does not signify total depravity. It designates 
a partial and not a total tendency of the eyo. It is used 
comparatively. Compared with the daw, he is carnal. The 
law is absolutely and totally spiritual (mvevparixds), but he is 
not absolutely and totally holy. He is still to some extent, 
and he feels it to be no small extent (verse 24), ruled by 
odp€. But he is not wholly and completely ruled by it. He 
‘is inwardly inclined to good (verses 15, 19, 21); is disin- 
clined to, and hates evil (verses 15, 16, 19); ‘“ delights in the 
law of God” (verse 22); and “serves the law of God” (verse 
25). The natural man is not thus described in Scripture. 
That a regenerate man may be called “carnal” is proved by 
1 Cor. iii. 1, 3. Here, this epithet is applied to certain be- 
lievers who, by reason of the weakness of their faith, are 
denominated “ babes in Christ;” who are described as “la- 
borers together with God,” as “‘ God’s husbandry and God’s 
building” (verse 9), as “the temple of God,” in whom “the 
Spirit of God dwelleth” (verse 16), yet, by reason of “en- 
vying and strife and divisions,” are also described as “ car- 
nal,” and ‘‘walking as men.” ezpapevos, etc.| this clause 
explains the meaning of the epithet odpxwds which St. Paul 
applies to himself. The carnality which he mourns over is a 
species of bondage. Compare aixyahwrilovra in verse 25. 
The phrase wémpaxev «is tas xeipas is found in the Septuagint 
version of 1 Sam. xxiii. 7. The word mempapévos, like odpxt- 
vos, is used relatively. It denotes, not the absolute and total 
bondage of the unregenerate, but the partial bondage of the 
imperfectly sanctified. The succeeding explanation proves 
this. Similar descriptions of the inward state of the re- 


newed soul are frequent in Scripture. Compare Ps. xxxviii. 
9 


Ww 


194 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


1-10; xxxix. 8-11; xl. 12; li. 1-12; lxix. 5; xen] Beem 
96, 120, 176; Isa. vi. 5; Mat. xxvi. 41; Rom. viii. 23; 1 Cor. 
ix. 26, 27; ili. 1-4; Eph. vi. 12; Phil. ii. 12-14; Heb. xu. 
1; 1 John i. 8. The continual prayer and struggle that 
mark the Christian race and fight, show that although the 
regenerate believer is not in the total and hopeless slavery 
of the unregenerate man, he is yet under so much of a bond- 
age as to prevent perfect obedience; to make him “ poor in 
spirit ” (Mat. v. 3), “weary and heavy laden” (Mat. xi. 28); 
and to force from him the ery: ‘‘O wretched man, who shall 
deliver me?” Otherwise, there would be no eall for such 


» prayer and struggle. The following are some of the charac- 


teristics of this partial bondage of the believer, as compared 
with the total bondage of the unbeliever. 1. It is accom- 
panied with the hope and expectation that it will one day 
cease entirely (Rom. vii. 24; ville 24, 25; Ps. xxxviu. 15; xl. 
1-3; Lam. iii. 26). The unbeliever has no such hope or expec- 
tation (Eph. 11.12). 2. It is accompanied with weariness and 
hatred of the sin that causes the bondage (Rom. vii. 15, 19, 


23, 24). The unbeliever, if unconvicted (‘‘alive without the 


law”), has no feeling upon the subject; if convicted (‘‘the 
commandment coming”) has only the emotions of remorse 
and fear, which are not hatred of sin, or weariness of it 
(2 Cor. vii. 10). 3.°The believer positively loves holiness, 
and hates sin; he is inclined to good, and disinclined to evil, 
as the terms Jew and puod imply (Rom. vii. 15, 16, 19, 20, 
21, 22). The unbeliever hates holiness, and loves sin; is in- 
clined to evil, and disinclined to good (Rom. vill. 7). t70] 
in connection with zempayévos refers to the custom of com- 
pelling captives to pass under a yoke. Compare aixyauri- 
Covra, in verse 23. Like radairwpos (ver. 24), it implies a 
weary consciousness of bondage. 


Vur. 15 begins the explanation, in detail, of the statement 


CHAPTER VII. 165. . 195 


*6 yap Katepydtouat, od ywookw: ov yap 5 Jédra, 


a / bd > a a a a 
TOUTO Tpacow, GAN O plow, TOVTO TOLW. 


that the writer is “carnal, sold under sin.” 


If not explained, 
the language might be taken in the absolute unqualified 
sense, and he be understood to say that he is a lost man: 
“in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity” 
(Acts viii. 23). yap] looks back to the assertion in verse 14, 
and introduces the proof and explanation of it. xarepyafopa] 
the present tense denotes what the writer is now doing. It 
does not, however, denote wnresisted, habitual, and uniform 


“¢ disallows of ” 


action. St. Paul does mean to teach that he 
and “hates ” every single thing, without exception, that he 
is now doing; because he subsequently describes himself as 
“inclined to good” (verse 21), and “serving the law of 
God” (verse 25). Consequently, xarepyaloyar. denotes 7e- 
pressed and intermittent action, in distinction from unre- 
sisted habitual and uniform action. The apostle acknowl- 
edges that often, but not invariably, he commits actual sin 
of thought, word, and deed. He teaches, also, that a part 
of his inward experience, but not the whole of it, is the 
working of remaining concupiscence (éJupia). He is con- 
scious of the “lusting of the flesh against the Spirit;” but 
also, of the “lusting of the Spirit against the flesh” (Gal. v. 
17). The difference between repressed and intermittent, 
and habitual and uniform action, is marked in 1 John i, 8, 
compared with 1 John iii. 6, 9. Upon this important point, 
we avail ourselves of the views of Owen, whose explanation 
of the seventh chapter of Romans, in his treatises upon In- 
dwelling Sin and the work of the Holy Spirit, is marked 
by his usual psychological subtlety, and spiritual insight. 
‘There are in believers,” says Owen (Holy Spirit, IV. vi.), 
“inclinations and dispositions to sin proceeding from the 
remainders of an habitual principle. This the Scripture 


196 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


calls the ‘flesh,’ ‘lust,’ ‘the sin that dwelleth in us,’ ‘the 
body of death;’ being what yet remaineth in believers of 
that vicious corrupted depravation of our nature which 
came upon us by the loss of the image of God. This still 
continueth in believers, inclining them unto evil, according 
to the power and efficacy that is remaining in it, in various 
degrees.” This remaining corruption, or concupiscence, 
Owen asserts to be of the nature of a habit (habitus), or 
disposition; yet its workings in the believer are not habit- 
ual, in the sense of being wnrepressed, uniform, and tnvari- 
able ; because they are resisted and more or less overcome, 
by grace in the soul. The “lustings of the Spirit against 
the flesh” (Gal. v. 17) prevent the flesh from having that 
unintermittent and unvarying operation which it has in the 
\_unregenerate. “We must distinguish,” says Owen (In- 
dwelling Sin, Chap. vi.), “between the habitual frame of the 
heart, and the natural propensity or habitual inclination of 
the Jaw of sin in the heart. The habitual inclination of the 
heart is denominated from the principle that bears chief or 
sovereign rule in it; and therefore in believers it is unto 
good, unto God, unto holiness, unto obedience. The beliey- 
er’s heart is not habitually inclined unto evil by the remain- 
ders of indwelling sin, but this sin in the heart hath a con- 
stant habitual propensity unto evil, in itself considered, or in 
its own nature.” In other words, indwelling sin in the be- 
liever is of the nature of a habit or disposition, in distinction 
from an act; but it is not the characteristic of a believer, as 
it is of an unbeliever, to habitually indulge and act out this 
habit or disposition. ‘Upon the introduction of the new 
principle of grace and holiness,” says Owen (Holy Spirit, IV. 
vi.), “this habit of sin is weakened, impaired, and so disen- 
abled, as that it cannot nor shall incline unto sin, with that 
constancy and prevalency as formerly, nor press ordinarily 
with the same urgency and violence. Hence in the Scrip- 


CHAPTER VII. 15. 197 


ture it is said to be dethroned by grace, so as that it shall 
not reign or lord it over us, by hurrying us into the pursuit 
of its uncontrollable inclinations, Rom. vi. 12. Those who 
have this spiritual principle of holiness, may be surprised 
into actual omission of duties, and commission of sins, and a 
temporary indulgence of corrupt affections. But habitually 
they cannot be so. An habitual reserve for anything that is 
sinful, or morally evil, is eternally inconsistent with this 
principle of holiness. This spiritual principle of holiness in 
the believer disposeth the heart unto duties of holiness con- 
stantly and evenly. He in whom it is feareth always, or is 
in the fear of the Lord all the day long. It is true, that the 
actings of grace in us are sometimes more intense and vigor- 
ous than at other times; and we ourselves are sometimes 
more watchful, and diligently intent on all occasions of act- 
ing out grace, whether in solemn duties, or in our general 
course, than we are at some other times. Moreover, there 
are especial seasons wherein we meet with greater difficulties 
and obstructions from our lusts and temptations than ordi- 
nary, whereby this holy disposition is intercepted, and im- 
peded. But notwithstanding all these things which are con- 
trary to it, and obstructive of its operations, in itself and in 
its own nature it doth constantly and evenly incline the soul 
unto duties of holiness.” ywwoxw| Explanations: 1. ywooko 
denotes Jove and inclination; and not mere approbation, 
which may exist without love of holiness or hatred of sin. 
This is the Hebraistic:and Biblical use of the word. It is like 
yan in Gen. xvii. 19; Ps. i. 6; xxxvi.10; exliv.3; Hosea viii. 
4; Amos iii. 2. Compare, also, Mat. vii. 23; John x. 14; 1 Cor. 
vill. 3; xvi. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 19; 1 Thess, v. 12 (Ellicott in loc.). 
This signification is adopted by Augustine, Erasmus, Beza, 
Pareus, Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Semler. That this is the cor- 
rect view, is proved by the fact that od ywwoxw is in the next 
clause explained by od 3éAw and pio; and also by the subse- 


— 


198 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


quent description of the writer’s moral state, in which posi- 
tive aversion toward and hatred of evil, together with strug- 
gle against it, are delineated. 2. ywooxw denotes the appro- 
bation of conscience. This is the classical use of the word. 
See Liddell and Scott, in voce. Ta ypyo? émordapeda Kai 
yryvookopev, od« éxrrovotper 5é (Huripides, Medea, 1077). Com- 
pare Ovid’s “video meliora, proboque; deteriora sequor” 
(Met. vii. 20, 21). That the writer’s feeling toward the 
moral law is more than the necessary and organic action of 
conscience, is proved by the employment of ovy7doua in verse 
22, and dovAevw in verse 25; as well as of JeAw and puod, in 
other places. He not only “approves” of the law, but he 
“delights in” it, and “serves” it. St. Paul employs doxiua- 
fw and ovvicrnwt, when he wishes to indicate the approbation 
of conscience. Compare Rom. ii. 18; iii. 5; xiv. 22; 1 Cor. 
xvi. 3; 2 Cor. ili.1; iv. 2; x.18. 3. ywwoxnw means knowledge, 
or intelligence, simply. According to this view, St. Paul as- 
serts his ignorance of the sin which he commits. He does 
not understand the moral significance of it. This explana- 
tion of the word is adopted by Chrysostom, De Wette, 
Meyer, Tholuck, Ruckert, Philippi. It implies that the 
writer’s inward state, described by cdpxwos and rempapevos, is 
one of insensibility; the same as that described in verse 9 by 
the phrase: “alive without the law.” But this is a mental 
state that passed away, “when the commandment came.” 
If the person were still in this state of spiritual apathy, and 
ignorance, he could not feel the burden of being “ sold under 
sin,” or the spiritual sorrow implied in tadaizwpos éy® (verse 
24). In Luke xxiii. 34, where the moral ignorance and un- 
consciousness of the unconvicted sinner is spoken of, didacx is 
used. The same éy® which is to be supplied with xarepyao- 
pat, is to be supplied with od ywaécxnw, The very same person 
who commits the sin is disinclined to it, and hates it (verse 
15). The éya is the comprehensive éy®, including the “new 


CHAPTER VII. 15. 199 


man” together with remnants of the “old man.” Both of 
these coexist in the unity of a single self-consciousness. 


“T hate my own vain thoughts that rise, 
But love thy law, my God.” 


St. Paul, as a person in whom there is a renewed nature and 
the remainders of a sinful one, has within himself the basis 
for a twofold activity and experience,—that of grace, and 
that of sin,—and can say ‘‘Z hate what Z do.” And yet he 
is not a double-minded man: dvyp dapvxos (James i. 8). There 
are not two principles of action within him, of egwa/ strength 
and efficiency. There is only one principle, in the proper sense 
of the term, and the dying fragments of another. Grace is 
stronger than sin, in the believer. It is the dominant char- 
acteristic in him (vi. 17, 18, 22); and with reference to it, he 
is to be denominated a “saint” (vill. 27; xii. 13; xvi. 15; 
1 Cor. vi. 2; Eph. i. 1; Col. i.2; Heb. vi. 10, et passim), and 
*pertect ” (Mat. xix. 21; 1 Cor. u. 6; Phil. ii. 15; James i. 
A; iii. 2). od yap J€dAw, etc.| This clause is explanatory of 6 
Karepydfouat, ov ywwokw ; and shows that the writer does not 
wish to be understood as saying that he is wholly depraved 
and unregenerate. He is right at heart, and in his disposi- 
tion, notwithstanding his sins, and failures in duty. When 
he sins, he does not do what he loves, but what he hates. 
Jé€\w implies feeling and affection. It denotes the inclina- 
tion of the will, and not a mere volition, or resolve. It is a 
bias of the faculty, contrary to that denoted by pico. <As 
the latter does not signify mere volitionary action, neither 
does the former. The former implies desire, and the latter 
aversion, For the Biblical signification of Jédw, see Mat. ix. 
eet (5 xvi. 4; xxvu. 43;-Johmv. 21, 40; xxi. 18; Rom. 
xii. 3; Gal. v. 17; Heb. x. 5, 8; Rev.-xxii. 17. In these in- 
stances the general disposition or bent of the will is in- 
tended. Hence, in Scripture, the activity denoted by JéAnua 


900 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


is often attributed to xapdia. See comment on ii. 5. When- 
ever a particular decision, or a particular act of choice, in 
distinction from the bent or inclination, is intended, the 
term employed is BovAy, or BovAnwa. See Luke vii. 30; xxiii. 
51; Acts ii. 23; xxvii. 42,43; Rom.ix. 19; 1 Cor. iv. 5; Eph. 
i.11; Heb. vi. 17. This distinction between J€Anua and BovdAy 
is not so carefully and sharply marked in the classical use of 
the words, as it is in the Biblical. 

The term JAw, then, denotes a state of the will and affec- 
tions, and not the action of the moral reason and conscience, 
as Meyer, and others maintain. It is more, also, than the 
schoolman’s velleitas, as Tholuck, and others, explain it. 
This is a mere wish, in distinction from a will or positive 
inclination. The phraseology of St. Paul, in this passage, 
must not be confounded with that of Plato in the Republic, 
ix. 589, Protagoras, 345, and Timzeus, 86; where he asserts 
that “no wise man supposes that any one sins willingly; 
but that all men well know that those who commit base and 
wicked acts do so involuntarily,’—a sentiment combated 
by Aristotle (Ethics, iii. 5), and contradictory to Plato’s own 
views as expressed elsewhere; particularly when speaking of 
the punishment to be inflicted upon sin in the future world 
(Gorgias, 525). There is also in Epictetus (Enchiridion, 
li. 26) a passage singularly resembling this of St. Paul, so 
far as the words are concerned, but the meaning of which is 
the same with that of Plato: 6 pe Jere (i. e., 6 duaprévwv) ob 
mote, Kal 6 pn J€éAeu wotet. See also Sophocles, Gidipus Colonus, 
270. The reference, in these statements of Plato and Hpic- 
tetus, is to the selfish suffering and regret experienced by 
the transgressor after his transgression. He wishes that he 
had not committed the sin which reason condemns, and for 
which conscience is distressing him, and thus seems to have 
sinned against his will. He makes some ineffectual resolu- 
tions and attempts to reform, and then ceases the struggle. - 


CHAPTER VII. 15. 201 


This is far from being the same as loving holiness, and hat- 
ing and constantly struggling with sin; which is the descrip- 
tion of St. Paul’s experience. Regret is not repentance; a 
wish (velleitas) is not a will (voluntas); volitions are not an 
inclination. The experience described by Plato and Epicte- 
tus is that of the natural man under conviction of sin, bet 
without love of holiness. It is the experience of Tarquin 
after the rape of Lucrece, so powerfully delineated by Shak- 
speare; of the remorseful but impenitent Danish king, who 
cannot pray, “though inclination be as sharp as will,” be- 
cause one “cannot be pardoned, and retain the offence:” an 
experience which is summed up and concentrated in the mar- 
vellous sonnet (cxxix.) of the great human Searcher of the 
human heart: 
«The expense of spirit in a waste of shame 
Is lust in action ; and till action, lust 
Is perjured, murderous, bloody, full of blame, 
Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust ; 
Enjoyed no sooner, but despised straight ; 
Past reason hunted; and no sooner had, 
Past reason hated, as a swallowed bait, 
On purpose laid to make the taker mad; 
Mad in pursuit, and in possession s0 ; 
Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme ; 
A bliss in proof,—and proved, a very woe; 
Before, a joy proposed; behind a dream: 
All this the world well knows; yet none knows well 
To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.” 


Tn all such instances and experiences as these, the contest 
with evil, not being founded in a real and spiritual hatred 
of evil, is not persevering and ‘unto blood” (Heb. xii. 4), 
but only “for a while” (Mat. xiii. 21). It is not successful, 
but a failure. The experience described by St. Paul, on the 
contrary, is that of one whose struggle is life-long and vie- 
torious, as the triumphant, “I thank God, through Jesus * 

* : 


202 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


* ef Se 5 ov JAW, TODTO TOL, TUMp>HUL TO VOUw OTL 

' 17 \ \ 3:0 ys EAN , Sie 20h > Nake. 

Kados: “ vuvl € ovKéTL eyo KaTEepydfouat avTO, adda 4 
EVOLKOUTa EV Ewol amapTia. 


Christ our Lord,” implies (verse 25). 0d mpdccw] is equiva- 
lent to od wo, as the exchange of the words in verse 19 
shows. Intermittent, in distinction from habitual and uni- 
form action, is intended. See comment on verse 15. That 
a person should never, in a single instance, do what he is in- 
clined to do, is psychologically impossible. puod] denotes 
spiritual and holy detestation: the same emotion in kind 
with that of God (Lev. xx. 23; Ps. v. 6; x. 3; Prov. vi. 16; 
vill. 13; Is. lxi. 8; Jer. xliv. 4; Rev. ii. 6); and identical with 
that enjoined upon believers (Ps. xevii. 10; Eccl. iii. 8; Amos 
v.15; Mat. vi. 24), and exercised by them (Ps. ci. 3; exix. 113, 
128, 163; cxxxix. 21,22; Prov. viii. 18). ow] denotes inter- 
mittent action. That a person should invariably do what he 
hates, is as impossible as that he should never, in a single in- 
stance, do what he loves. 


Vur. 16. The apostle continues the argument upon which 
he entered in verse 14: viz., to show from the experience of 
the believer, in his struggle with remaining sin, that the law 
is holy. The fact, stated in verses 14 and 15, that the be- 
liever is only partially in bondage to sin, and that when he 
sins he does something that is contrary to his inclination, 
and something that he hates, proves that he agrees (ovjadnpu) 
with the law: loving what the law commands, and hating 
what the law forbids. Assuming then, as he does, that his 
love and hatred, in the premises, are right and not wrong, it 
follows that the law is not sin (verse 7). It enjoins what is 
lovable, and prohibits what is hateful. 9€] is transitive: 
“now” if, etc. J€\w and wad] have the same signification 

* as in verse 15, being merely a repetition. ovudpnut] denotes - 


CHAPTER VII. 1% 2038 


a co-testimony with the law. The law claims to be righteous- 
ness and not sin, and the believer, by his love of righteous- 
ness and hatred of sin, coincides, or accords with the claim. 
The reference in this word is more to the conscience, than to 
the heart and will. In verse 22, where the affections are in- 
tended, a stronger term (cuv7dopuar) is used. 


Ver. 17 looks back to verse 15, and aims to show that the 
sinning there spoken of is not the unresisted, impenitent, and 
uniform sinning of unregenerate and unforgiven men, but a 
particular kind of sinning that is accompanied with sorrow, 
hatred of it, and struggle with it. vvvi| is logical, not tem- 
poral: “now, since this is the case:” namely, that I hate 
what I do, and do not do what I love. 6é| is adversative. 
ovxért| the logical use, as in vil. 20; xi. 6. éy®] is here em- 
ployed in the limited sense, to denote the principle of holi- 
ness implanted by regeneration, and this only. ‘This is the 
controlling principle in the believer, and constitutes the true 
man within the man. Hence, in verse 22, it is denominated 
the éow avIpwros. The remainders of the principle of sin are 
not put into the éyw in this limited sense (as they are in the 
comprehensive sense), but are set off by themselves, and called 
 évoltKovoa duapria; so that the action of the limited and qual- 
ified “1” is different in its nature and quality, from that of 
the “indwelling sin.” The éy in this narrow sense is holy, 
but indwelling sin, of course, is sinful. The former is grace 
in the soul; the latter is corruption in the soul. Take away 
from the soul all indwelling sin, and leave only this limited 
éy® (which St. Paul asserts is not the author of sin: ovKért 
éyo Katepyadlopxot aito), and perfect sanctification would be the 
result. This is done at death, when “the souls of believers 
are made perfect in holiness, and immediately pass into 
glory ” (Westminster S. C., 37). aird] this thing, namely, ~ 
which I hate (6 juwod), and to which I am not inclined (6 od 


204 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Jedw). evouxotoa év uot] sin is a resident alien in the beliey- 
er, a “squatter,” in the provincial sense, and not the true 
citizen and inhabitant. The figure is taken from a house 
(otkos) into which an intruder has crowded. This represen- 
tation shows still again, in addition to the preceding explan- 
atory clauses, that the writer is not willing to be understood 
by his phraseology in verse 14, that he is wholly carnal, and 
totally in bondage to sin. “There is nothing,” says Owen 
(Indwelling Sin, Ch. vi,), ‘more marvellous or dreadful in the 
working of sin, than this its importunity. The soul knows 
not what to make of it; it dislikes, abhors, abominates the 
evil it tends unto; it despiseth the thoughts of it, hates them 
as hell; and yet is by itself imposed on with them, as if it 
were another person, an express enemy got within him. All 
this the apostle discovers in Rom. vii. 15-17. ‘The things 
that I do, I hate.’ It is not of outward actions, but the in- 
ward risings of the mind that he treats. ‘i hate them,’ saith 
he, ‘I abominate them.’ But why, then, will he have any- 
thing more to do with them? If he hate them, and abhor 
himself for them, then let them alone, have no more to do 
with them, and so end the matter. Alas! saith he, verse 17, 
‘It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.’ I 
have one within me that is my enemy, that with endless re- 
sistless importunity puts these things upon me, even the 
things that I hate and abominate; I cannot be rid of them, 
Iam weary of myself, I cannot fly from them; ‘O wretched 
man that Iam, who shall deliver me?’ I do not say that 
this is the ordinary [uniform] condition of believers, but 
thus it is often, when the law of sin riseth up to war and 
fighting. It is not thus with them in respect of particular 
sins, this or that sin, outward sins, sins of life and conversa- 
tion; but yet in respect of vanity of mind, inward and _ spir- 
itual distempers, it is often so. Some, I know, pretend to 
great perfection, but J am resolved to believe the apostle - 


CHAPTER VII. 17. 205 


before them all and every one.” Compare Howe’s Blessed- 
ness of the Righteous, Ch. xx. This phraseology of St. 
Paul, distinguishing the true ego from what does not be- 
long to it, finds a parallel in Shakspeare’s Hamlet, Act v., 
Se. ii. 
“Was’t Hamlet wronged Laertes? Never Hamlet. 

If Hamlet from himself be ta’en away, 

And, when he’s not himself, does wrong Laertes, 

Then Hamlet does it not, Hamlet denies it. 

Who does it then? His madness. If’t be so, 

Hamlet is of the faction that is wronged ; 

His madness is poor Hamlet’s enemy.” 


Though indwelling sin (i. e., the remainders of original 
sin), is thus distinguished by St. Paul from the principle of 
holiness, or the limited and true éy#, it must not be inferred 
that it is not culpable, and properly sin. This is the Triden- 
tine view (Canones Tridentini, Sessio v.). The Council of 
Trent decided that concupiscence (érJupia), in the unregen- 
erate as well as the regenerate, is not sin in the strict sig- 
nification (Shedd’s History of Doctrine, ii. 147 sq.). This is 
an error. For, although the remainders of original sin do 
not constitute a part of the limited éy®, they do of the com- 
prehensive éyo; and man is responsible for all that is found 
in his total personality. The carnal desires of indwelling sin 
interpenetrate the entire self-consciousness of the believer, 
and make a part of that larger “I” which comprises a ¢wo- 
fold activity and has a twofold experience; which, as in 
verse 15, can say J hate what Jdo. The risings of evil de- 
sire in the believer, as well as the outward acts in which they 
are expressed, are as really a part of himself and his self- 
consciousness, as are his holy desires and the holy acts in 
which they,are expressed. ‘ With the mind, I myself serve 
the law of God; but with the flesh [I myse/f serve] the law 
of sin” (vii. 25). When he sins, either inwardly or outward- 


206 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


ly, he is spontaneously inclined and self-determined. There 
is no compulsion in the exercise of these internal lusts, or in 
the perpetration of the external acts. They are a mode of 
the will. They are self-will, and ill-will. While, therefore, 
H évoikovoa dpaptia can be distinguished from the limited éya, 
or, in other words, remaining lust from the new principle of 
holiness implanted by regeneration, the two cannot be divided 
and separated from each other, so as to constitute two per- 
sons. Hence, when St. Paul, for the purpose of analysis and 
explanation, has denominated the new principle of spiritual 
life the ey, he does not denominate the remainders of the 
old principle of sin an éy also (they are then, otxér éy); 
because in this case there would be not only a duplication 
of the activity and of the experience, but of the unity itself 
of the human soul. There would be two egos. This would 
be an error in anthropology similar to that of Nestorianism 
in Christology. This coexistence and interpenetration, in 
one self-consciousness, of the actings of indwelling sin with 
those of the principle of spiritual life, or in St. Paul’s phrase- 
ology of the flesh with the spirit, are feelingly and vividly 
expressed in the lines of Cowper: 


‘My God, how perfect are thy ways ! 
But mine polluted are ; 
Sin twines itself about my praise, 
And slides into my prayer. 


When I would speak what thou hast done 
To save me from my sin, 

I cannot make thy mercies known, 
But self-applause creeps in. 


Divine desire, that holy flame 

Thy grace creates in me ; . 
Alas! impatience is its name 

When it returns to thee. 


CHAPTER VII. 18. 207 


Leg \ 54 > 929 Ad > / fe > a ‘ 

oida yap OTL ovK oiKkel ev Ewol, TOUTETTLY EV TH CapKi 

pov, ayadov. TO yap Jédew TapaKertai mot, TO S€ KaTEp- 
/ \ \ BA 
ydaleotat TO Kadov ov* 


This heart, a fountain of vile thoughts, 
How does it overflow ! 
While se/f upon the surface floats, 
Still bubbling from below.” —Works, iii. 11. 


While, however, indwelling sin in the regenerate is sin in 
the strict sense of guilt, and requires to be expiated by the 
atoning blood of Christ, yet it is not so intense and malig- 
nant a form of sin, as is the impenitent and hardened sin of 
the natural man. It is wearily felt to be bondage; is con- 
tinually mourned over and struggled with, by the believer. 
It is sin in its dying and waning state, which is not so in- 
tense and determined a mode, as sin in its growing and wax- 
ing state. The former is the minuendo movement of sin; 
the latter the crescendo. 


Ver. 18 amplifies and confirms the statement in verse 17. 
oida] “I know from my own experience,” i. e. yap] intro- 
duces the explanation and further proof of the statement in 
‘the preceding verse. oixet] alludes to évouxotoa in verse 17. 
euot] is the comprehensive éy#, which includes the limited 
éyo of verse 17 (the éow dvIpwros of verse 22), together with 
the remainders of sin designated by 77 évoixotoa dmaptia in 
verse 17. These all combined in one unity constitute the 
total person St. Paul, as he is now at the moment of writing. 
tovreotw | introduces an explanation, to prevent the reader 
from understanding the writer to say absolutely, and without 
qualification, that ‘no good thing dwells” in his total per- 
sonality. The Holy Spirit “dwells” in him (John xiv. 17; 
Rom. viii. 9, 11; 1 Cor. iii..16 compared,with verses 1 and 3; 
2 Tim. i. 14; 1 John iv. 12); and the new principle of holi- 


208 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


ness, “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” also 
resides in him (Rom. vi. 13, 17; vil. 6, 22, 25). Taking the 
term ‘‘me” in the wide sense, St. Paul is not willing to say 
that there is no holiness in him. ‘Fatetur nihil boni in se 
habitare: deinde correctionem subjicit, ne sit contumeliosus 
in dei gratiam, que ipsa quoque in eo habitat, sed pars car- 
nis non erat.” Calvin in loco. év TH capxi] In order to ex- 
plain his meaning, the apostle distinguishes the remainders 
of sin within him from the principle of spiritual life within 
him, and asserts that it is to the former alone that his asser- 
tion that ‘no good thing dwelleth in him” refers. It does 
not refer to the éow avIpw7os, or the limited éy®. This latter 
is the product of regenerating grace, and, consequently, is 
holy in its nature. This is “spirit” and not “flesh.” This 
hates sin, and does not commit sin (verses 15, 17). In order 
that this holy principle may not be involved in the charge of 
total depravity that is here made, the writer carefully distin- 
guishes it from the indwelling corruption that is intimately 
associated with it, it is true, but which is a very different 
thing from it. The odp& here described as having nothing 
good in it, is the same as 7% évoixotoa dyapria in verse 17, and 
6 vomos év Tots wéAeoiv in verse 22; both of which make a part 
of the éy in the comprehensive sense, but no part of the éya 
in the limited signification. This odp§ or indwelling sin, it 
should be noticed, is not strictly, and in the full sense of the 
term, a principle, but only the remainders of one. It is true 
that St. Paul denominates it a ‘‘law in the members” (verse 
23), and a “law of sin” (verses 23, 25). And theologians 
speak of indwelling sin, as a “ principle,” a “disposition,” a 
“sinful nature,” etc. But this is for the purpose of teach- 
ing that indwelling sin is something more than actual trans- 
gression. It is inward lust, deeply seated, and making con- 
tinual and strong opposition to the principle of holiness. 
But, the vouos duaprias in the believer is not a “law” or - 


CHAPTER VII. 18. 209 


“principle ” of life and conduct, in the full and strict sense 
in which these terms are applicable to the vdéjos tod vods, or 
éo® avJpwros (verses 22, 23). A principle or law of action, 
in the strict sense, is the dominant force in the subject of it. 
In this sense, holiness is the only principle in the regenerate 
person. The “law of the mind,” and not the “law of sin,” 
is the superior and controlling power in him, There cannot 
be two dominant principles, one of holiness and one of sin, 
in the same man at the same time. But there may be a 
principle of holiness and fragments of a principle of sin, in 
one and the same person, at one and the same moment. 
And these fragments may be denominated a principle, in a 
qualified and secondary sense. ‘There are in believers, in- 
clinations and dispositions to sin proceeding from the re- 
mainders of an habitual principle. This the Scripture calls 
the ‘flesh,’ ‘lust,’ ‘the sin that dwelleth in us,’ ‘the body of 
death ’” (Owen’s Holy Spirit, IV. vi.). ‘‘In every regener- 
ate person there are, in a spiritual sense, two principles of 
all his actings; two wills; there is a will of the flesh, and 
there is a will of the Spirit; a regenerate man is spiritually, 
and in Scripture expression, two men; a new man and an 
old. There is an ‘I,’ and an ‘I’ at opposition; a will and 
non-willing; a doing and non-doing; a delighting and non- 
delighting; all in the same person. Rom. vii. 15, 19, 22. 
But, there is not a duality of wills in a physical sense, as 
the will is a natural faculty of,the soul; but in a moral and 
andlogical sense, as the word is taken for a habit or princi- 
ple of good or evil ” (Owen’s Saints’ Perseverance, Ch. xv.). 
“The two contrary principles of spirit and flesh, of grace 
and sin, cannot exist in the highest degree at the same time, 
nor be actually prevalent or predominant in the same in- 
stances. That is, sin and grace cannot bear rule in the same 
heart at the same time, so as that it should be equally under 
the conduct of them both. Nor can they have in the soul 


210 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


contrary inclinations equally efficacious ; for then would 
they absolutely obstruct all sorts of operations whatever” 
(Owen’s Holy Spirit, IV. vi.). ‘There are two laws in us, 
the law of flesh, or of sin; and the law of the mind, or of 
grace. But contrary laws cannot obtain sovereign power 
over the same person at the same time. The sovereign 
power in believers is in the hand of the law of grace; so the 
apostle declares, Rom. vii. 22: ‘I delight in the law of God 
in the inward man’” (Owen’s Indwelling Sin, Ch. vi.). pov] 
the partitive genitive. No good thing dwells “in the flesh 
of me:” in that part of the comprehensive “me” which the 
writer has denominated “indweiling sin,” and which is no 
part of the limited “me.” dyaJov] is anarthrous, to denote 
abstract goodness. There is no holiness in indwelling sin; 
remaining lust is totally depraved. yap] introduces the proof 
and explanation of the preceding clause. 16 JéAev] supply 
TO kadov, suggested from the succeeding clause. The inclina- 
tion of the regenerate will is intended, as in verses 15 and 
16. See comment. apaxerai] The writer conceives of the 
entire personality (the comprehensive éy) as a locality, in 
which he looks about to see what there is. He sees a holy 
disposition “lying alongside” of evil and antagonistic de- 
sires. jot] is the comprehensive éy®. KarepydélerIa] “ to 
accomplish.” The preposition is intensive: effectual and 
perfect performance is meant. -The comprehensive éya, as 
made up of the new man and relics of the old man, is unable 
to carry out completely, and with no defect or failure of any 
kind, its regenerate and holy inclination. This appears in 
two ways: 1. The believer, even when he obeys, which is his 
general habit, never comes perfectly up to the ideal of the 
law which is zvevpartixds (verse 14). Remaining corruption 
hinders the working of grace; the flesh lusts against the 
spirit, “‘so that ye cannot do [perfectly] the things that ye 
would” (Gal. v. 17). Hence, the obedience of the believer 


CHAPTER VII. 19. 211 


19 9 \ a h a 
ov yap 0 Sé\w Tow ayadov, GAXd 6 od IAE@ Kaxdr, 
nr Zé: 20 > \ aA > f lal r > / 

TovTo Tpdcow. “et oé€ 0 ov Iédw, TODTO TrOLM, OUKETL 


is not so complete and normal as it will be when he is “a 
just man made perfect ” (Heb. xii. 23), and when indwelling 
sin no longer “lies alongside” of the new nature. “Take 
an instance in prayer. A man addresseth himself unto that 
duty; he would not only perform it, but he would perform it 
in that manner that the nature of the duty, and his own con- 
dition, do require. He would ‘pray in the Spirit,’ fervently, 
‘with sighs and groans that cannot be uttered;’ this he aims 
at. Now oftentimes he shall find a rebellion, a fighting of 
the law of sin, in this matter. He shall find difficulty to 
get anything done, who thought to do all things. I do 
not say that it is thus always, but it is so when sin wars 
and rebels, which expresseth an especial acting of its pow- 
er” (Owen’s Indwelling Sin, Ch. vi.). 2. The believer some- 
times yields to inward corruption, and actually transgresses 
the law. ov] is followed by etpicxw in DEFG Peshito, 
Vulgate, Receptus. It is wanting in NABC Copt., Lachm., 
Tisch., Tregelles. If rejected, wapdxetaé must be supplied 
with ov. 


Ver. 19 is only an emphatic reaffirmation of what has 
been said in verses 15-18. Jé€dw] signifies love and inclina- 
-tion. See comment on verse 15. ow] denotes intermittent 
and imperfect action. The believer frequently, but not in- 
variably, fails altogether to do the good to which he is in- 
clined; and when he does the good to which he is inclined, 
it is never with an absolute perfection of service such as the 
“spiritual” law requires. See comment on yerse 18. zpdo- 
ow| In St. Paul’s use, there is no distinction between this 
word and zo. The two are interchangeable. In verse 15, 
mpadcow is connected with holiness (6 JeAw); in this verse, 


212 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


5x oN , ye 5) Agence. Ion 3 3 age 
éy@ Katepydfouat avTo, GAA 1 oikovca év emol apap- 
tia. ” evpickw apa Tov vopsov TH DédovTL emo Troieiy, 


with sin (6 ov Jé\w). In verse 15, wow is connected with 6 
pic = 6 od JéAw; and in verse 19, with 6 Jeo. Compare 


Gal. v. 17. 


Ver. 20 is an inference drawn from the proposition in the 
last clause of verse 19, and is a repetition of the inference 
drawn in verse 17 from the same proposition in verses 15 
and 16. The apostle is particular and emphatic, in his 
endeavor to discriminate between grace and sin, the spirit 
and the flesh, in himself, and to prevent what is predicable 
of the latter from being predicated of the former. See com- 
ment on verses 15-18. 


Verses 21-23 contain a conclusion, introduced by dpa, 
drawn from the course of reasoning in verses 14-20, 
etpickw| is a common word in reasoning, and implies that 
some truth has been brought to view by the previous argu- 
mentation. ov vouov| the written law, but as including the 
unwritten. Two constructions are possible: 1. voéuov is the 
object of JéAovr: wovety, having 76 «aAdv in apposition with it, 
as exegetical. Compare 2 Tim. iv. 7% (Hornbergius, Knapp, 
Tholuck, Olshausen, Fritzsche). 2. It is the object of 
eipioxw, and is taken in the sense of a “general rule,” or a 
“common fact” (Luther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, De Wette, 
Philippi, Hodge, Stuart). The first construction is prefera- 
ble, because: 1. It is improbable that the writer, within so 
brief a space, would employ the same word in three difter- 
ent senses: viz., a rule of conduct; an inward inclination, 
or disposition ; and a common fact. This would be the 
only instance in the New Testament of the latter significa- 
tion. 2. Because, by this construction 7d xaddv constitutes 
a regular antithesis to 7d xaxdv in the next clause, and ~ 


————ortrt—“‘™SC 


- 


CHAPTER VII. 22. 213 


\ 1d v4 b] l NG \ / A 22 4 

TO KaXOV, OTL éu“ol TO KAKOY TapdKelTaL CVVOOMAL 
n a 4 

yap TO vouw ToD Jeod Kata Tov gow dvIpwror, 


also reminds the reader of the epithets dyia, dixaa, and 
ayady (verse 12), which St. Paul has previously shown to 
belong eminently to 6 vouos. mapdxeror] For the figure, 
see comment on verse 18. In verse 18, the principle of 
holiness “lies alongside” of the remaining corruption; here, 
the remaining corruption ‘lies alongside” of the principle 
of holiness. 


Ver. 22. cvvydoua] is emphatic by position. It denotes a 
feeling of the heart, positive enjoyment. Plato (Republic, 
v. 462) uses it in this sense: ‘‘ When any one of the citizens 
experiences any good or evil, the whole state will make his 
case their own, and either rejoice (fvvyoIncerat), or sorrow 
with him.” So, also, Euripides (Medea, 136): obd€ cvvjdopa 
yivat, adycou dGparos. “The preposition is intensive (Wahl and 
Bretschneider). cw dvJpwrov| is identical with the limited 
éy® of verses 17 and 20, and 6 voyos rod vods in verse 23, and 
6 vous (put for 6 vdj0s Tod vods), in verse 25. It is described 
in the context as “hating evil; as “delighting in” good; 
and as “serving” the law of God (vii. 15, 22, 25). It is the 
“‘spirit,” as the contrary of the “flesh” (Mat. xxvi. 41; Gal. 
v. 17); “the law of the spirit of life” (Rom. viii. 1); the 
“spiritual mind” (Rom. viii. 6); the “‘new creature” (2 Cor. 
v. 17); the “new man” (Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 10); the “new 
spirit ” (Ezek. xi. 19); the “new heart” (Ezek. xviil. 31); 
the “heart of flesh” (Ezek. xi. 19); the “clean heart” (Ps. 
li. 10); the “right spirit” (Ps. li. 10); and the “ good treasure 
of the heart ” (Mat. xii. 35). “ Interior homo est novus seu 
regeneratus, mens illuminata, voluntas renovata.” Pareus, 
in loco. The éow dvSpwros is not the mere voice of reason 
and conscience. Conscience does not delight in holiness 


914 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


(cvvydoma, verse 22); it only approves of it (cvppyut, verse 
16). The approbation of the conscience may coexist with 
the hatred of the heart. For the nature of conscience, see 
i, 82; ili. 8, 13, 15, 22, 23; James 1.19. Such terms as Jedw 
and puc® are inapplicable to the conscience. Reason and 
conscience belong to the understanding, and not to the will; 
they are cognitive, not voluntary; perceptive, not affection- 
ate; legislative, not executive. 

Neither is the éow avIpwros that slight remainder of holi- 
ness, that faint clinamen to good, which the Semi-Pelagian 
anthropology attributes to the unregenerate man, constitut- 
ing a point of contact for the Holy Spirit, and a factor in 
the act of regeneration. This view is taken by Meyer and 
others, who reject, with Semi-Pelagianism, the Augustinian 
doctrine of total depravity, and adopt the synergistic theory 
of regeneration. The objection to this view is, that this 
faint clinamen is, by the acknowledgment of the advocates of 
the view themselves, an ineffectual power. It is not efficient 
and successful in the conflict with sin. It is vellettas, and 
not voluntas. See the statements of Faustus and Cassian 
(Shedd’s History of Doctrine, II. 104-108). But St. Paul’s 
description of the é¢ow dvJpwros makes it to be a dominant 
and controlling principle, able to struggle with and tri- 
umph over the powerful remnants of corruption (vii. 25). 
It is not a weak and vacillating aspiration, but a strong 
and abiding disposition. The eow avJpwros is the human 
spirit regenerated and inhabited by the Holy Spirit. It 
is not the merely human, but the human and divine in syn- 
thesis. 

Neither is. the éow dvIpwros exactly identical with the éow- 
Jev avIpwros of 2 Cor. iv. 16, though having much in common 
with it. This latter is antithetic to the ew dvIpwmos, and de- 
notes the soul alone, as distinguished from the body: “ our 
intellectual and moral nature, in distinction from our cor- 


{ 


CHAPTER VII. 23. Q15 


a I 
*® Brémw Oé Erepov vopuov év toils pédeociv pou avTicTpa- 
, “ / n , \ =! 4 / 
TEVOMEVOV TH VOM@ TOV Vods pov Kal aiypwadwTilovTa pe 
P| lel zg a e , A yy pI nr f , 
év TO Vvo“w@ THS aduaptias TH dvTe ev Tols pédeoiv pov. 


poreal” (Meyer); ‘man’s higher nature, his soul as the sub- 
ject of the divine life” (Hodge). Compare Milton’s: 


‘This attracts the soul, governs the inner man, the nobler part.” 
—PARADISE REGAINED, ii. 476. 


The éow avIpwros, as standing for the regenerate man, in- 
cludes the physical part together with the spiritual; be- 
cause the new life affects the body as well as the soul. It 
is, therefore, more comprehensive than the écwdev avIpwros 
of 2 Cor. iv. 16. 


Ver. 23. Bdérw] continues the figure contained in wapdxet- 
tat, in verse 18. See comment. €repov| another species ; 
numerical difference would be indicated by aAAov. An incli- 
nation, or propensity, different in kind from that denoted by 
ovvnoopat TH voww (the characteristic of the €ow avIpwros), is 
meant. It is the disposition described in viii. 7, as “ enmity 
towards God,” and “insubmission to the law of God.” vépov] 
is here used in the signification, not of an outward statute, 
but of an inward actuating principle. Law, either material 
or mental, has two phases. 1. Viewed objectively, as pro- 
ceeding from the lawgiver, it is a command. 2. Viewed sub- 
jectively, as inhering in the subject upon which it is imposed, 
it is an inward impulse or principle of action. The laws of 
matter, in their objective phase, are the rules of material 
motion prescribed by the Creator, as expressed mathemati- 
cally in the formule of physical science; and in their sub- 
jective phase, they are the forces themselves of matter, in- 
hering in and moving the material universe. A force of 
nature is a law of nature in concrete action. In like man- 


216 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


ner, the moral law may be viewed objectively, as the com- 
mand of God expressed in the decalogue and in conscience; 
or subjectively, as the principle of action in the creature’s 
will. Ina holy angel, the objective law of God is also a sub- 
jective disposition. The angelic will is one with the holy 
commandment. The angel is not conscious of any difference 
between his inclination, and the rule of action prescribed by 
his Maker. Law, in the sphere of sinless perfection, as it is 
in that of material nature, is one with life and actuating 
force. The objective and the subjective are one and the 
same. In the case of fallen man or angel, there is no longer 
this identity of the objective law with the subjective inclina- 
tion. The two are brought into antagonism by sin, and the 
law “ordained to life is found to be unto death” (vii. 10). 
In regeneration, this original relation between law and will 
is restored. The mora! law is caused once more to be an 
inward and actuating principle; “written not in tables of 
stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart” (2 Cor. in. 3; Jer. 
_ xxxi. 83; Ps. xxxvii. 31). There being these two phases or 
aspects of law, it is easy to see how the same word vomos 
comes to be used by St. Paul, sometimes to denote the ex- 
ternal command, and sometimes the internal disposition; 
sometimes God’s statute, and sometimes man’s inclination. 
“A law,” says Owen (Indwelling Sin, Ch. i.), “is taken 
either properly, for a directive rule, or improperly, for an 
operative effective principle which seems to have the force 
ofalaw.” Similarly, Fritzsche (in loco) remarks that dmap- 
tia. personified is said dare legem. This subjective significa- 
tion is seen in the classical use of vouos to denote a ‘ cus- 
tom,” or “usage:” i.e.,a course of action. Schmidt (Syno- 
nymik der Griechen Sprache, I. 210) remarks that the older 
writers, like Homer and Sophocles, employ Jecpuds to desig- 
nate the divine law, and vézos to denote human statutes. 
Liddell and Scott say that Draco’s laws were entitled Jeopoi, 


CHAPTER VII. 23. DF 


because each began with Jecpuds, while those of Solon were 
denominated vouo. The vouos ev pédeciv, then, is identical 
with 7 oikotoa duaptia, év Tots péAeoiv| describes the quality 
and nature of this ‘‘other” law, or principle of action. It 
should be noticed that St. Paul does not say rév peAdv, but 
ev péedcotv. This “law of sin” is not the true and proper 
principle of action for the members. It is an intruder that 
ought not to be there. See the explanation of évoixotoa, in 
verse 17. Indwelling sin is not the original and created im- 
pulse of the members, but something that has subsequently 
come into them, and resides in them. péAcow includes the 
mental faculties, as well as the bodily organs. See comment 
on vi. 13,19. It is equivalent to capxi pov, in verse 18. The 
“Jaw,” or principle, of indwelling sin resides in all the facul- 
ties of both soul and body. Its workings or “ motions” 
(zaJSnpara, verse 5) are seen in the imagination, the intellect, 
the feelings of the heart, and the determinations of the will, 
as well as in the inordinate cravings of the body. ‘These are 
all of them ‘ members,” that is to say, organs and instru- 
ments of the human agent, in and by which remaining cor- 
ruption works in a believer. dvtirparevdopevov| denotes an 
unceasing but not necessarily successful warfare: a cam- 
paign. Compare 1 Pet. ii. 11; James iv. 1. “’Avrurrparev- 
eoJat is to rebel against a superior; otpateverJat is to assault 
or war for a superiority ” (Owen’s Indwelling Sin, Ch. vi.). 
vouw| is antithetic to vozoy, and like that is employed in the 
subjective sense of an actuating principle. The use of the 
article with vdéuw, and its omission with vomor, indicates the 
superior dignity and strength of the “law of the mind.” 
voos| In the classics, the word denotes the mind either as 
perceiving, or as feeling, or as purposing. Sometimes it is 
put for the understanding, and sometimes for the heart; 
sometimes for reason and judgment, and sometimes for mood 


and inclination. See Liddell and Scott in voce. The Bibli- 
10 


918 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


cal use is equally varied. In the New Testament, vods is 
nearly the same as veda, The vopos tov vods is denominated 
6 vopos Tod mvevpaTos (vill. 2), and 70 Ppovnua tod mvevparos 
(viii. 6). One and the same principle of spiritual life, the 
> is designated by all three 
phrases. The following particulars are to be noted. 1. 


contrary of the “law of sin,’ 


Like zvetya, vots may denote the faculty of rational percep- 
tion, the reason - Luke xxiv. 45; 1 Cor. xiv. 15; Phil. iv. 7; 
Titus i. 15; Rev. xiii. 17, compared with 1 Cor. xiv. 253 1. 
11; Lukei. 80. 2. Like zvetpa, vots may denote the moral 
temper and disposition, the will: 1 Cor. i. 16; 1.10; Eph. 
iv. 23; Coloss. ii. 18, compared with Mat. v. 3; Rom. viii. 15; 
1 Cor. i1..12; iv. 21; Gal. vi. 1; Eph.'1. 175 iv. ee eee 
mvedpa, vols may be infected with sin: Rom. i. 28; xii. 2; 
Eph. iv.17; 2 Tim. iii. 8; Tit. i. 15, compared with Mark 1. 23; 
1 Thess. v. 23. 4. In St. Paul’s classification in 1 Thess. v. 
23, mvetpa, or vous, is the highest part of the human constitu- 
tion. 5. In the New Testament, zvetua denotes either the 
Divine Spirit (Mat. i. 18; John iv. 24; Rom. viii. 9), or the 
human spirit (Luke xxiii. 46; Roi. 1. 9); but vots is used 
only of the human spirit. There being these various signifi- 
cations, the meaning of vots must be determined by the con- 
text. The connection of thought shows that as used in this 
place, 1. It is rational, because the perception of the moral 
law is implied. 2. It is voluntary, because there is a dispo- 
sition (vdm0s) in the vods. 3. It is spiritual and holy, because 
it is the contrary of odap& and duapria (verses 17, 18, 23), is 
identical with 6 éow dvIpwros and the limited éy® of verses 17 
and 20, and by means of it, St. Paul “serves the law of 
God” (verse 25). Consequently, vots here denotes the hu- 
man understanding and will in synthesis, and as regenerate. 
The understanding is enlightened, and the will is enlivened 
by the Holy Spirit, who dwells in the votds, thus regenerated, 
as the source and support of its divine life. It is not mere 


CHAPTER VII. 24. 219 


reason, or the “higher nature” in man. (The “better self,” 
of Meyer, and others.) This may be, and in the unregener- 
ate is, fallen and depraved. But it is this higher nature as 
renewed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. “ Interior homo 
non anima simpliciter dicitur, sed spiritualis ejus pars que a 
deo regenerata est.” Calvin ad Rom. vil. 22. This is the 
governing power in St. Paul, as he describes himself; though 
it is constantly beset and impeded in its action, by the “law 
of sin,” or remainders of the old principle of evil. The re- 
generated vods has the spiritual discernment (1 Cor. 11. 14); 
but this discernment is more or less obscured and dimmed 
by the remnants of the darkened understanding (Eph. iv. 
18). It has the holy inclination and affections, but these 
are more or less opposed and blunted by the relics of the 
old inclination and affections. aiypudwriovra|] the spear 
(aiywn) is the instrument with which a captive is taken. 
The captivity is the same as that denoted by wepapevos in 
verse 14: relative and temporal; not absolute, endless, and 
hopeless. é] denotes the instrument. This is the reading 
of SBDEFG Vulg., Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. It is omitted 
ACL Peshito, Receptus. 


Ver. 24, tadaizwpos| from tAaeiv reipay: to endure trial. 
It is the nominative of address, for the vocative (Winer, 
p- 182). The word designates the same weary and burdened 
feeling that is expressed by wezpapévos, in verse 14, and is 
delineated in verses 15-23. It is a strong term. Compare 
Rey. iii. 17; Rom. iii. 16. But it does not, in this place, 
denote hopelessness or despair, as is shown by verse 25. 
The conflict is long and severe, so that the believer is 
“weary and heavy-laden.” With Isaiah, he cries: ‘‘ Woe is 
me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips.” 
(Isa. vi. 5). With David, he exclaims: ‘ Mine iniquities are 
gone over mine head; my wounds stink and are corrupt; 


920 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


24 0 2 \ #49 s 7 5) A 
TaraiTwpos éyo avdipwiros: tis pe ptoeTtar ex TOD 
cwuatos tod Javdtov tovTov; “ydpis TH Yew Sia 


thine arrows stick fast in me; there is no rest in my bones, 
because of my sin” (Ps. xxxviii. 2-5). But neither Isaiah, 
nor David, nor St. Paul despaired of ultimate victory over 
indwelling corruption. tis ficerac] the future form expresses 
the need of help, together with the expectation of obtaining 
at. Compare Ps. xxxviil. 15-22. It is not the wail of a lost 
and condemned soul; or the appealing cry of the natural 
man under conviction but as yet without evangelical hope 
(Eph. ii. 12). St. Paul cries, Who shall deliver me? “non 
quod desperet, ignoret, dubitet; sed ut desiderium suum in- 
dicet, et suspiriis perpetuis opus esse docet.” Pareus in 
loco. “He asks not by whom he was to be delivered, as 
one in doubt, like unbelievers; but it is the voice of one 
panting and almost fainting, because he does not find imme- 
diate help, as he longs for.” Calvin in loco. owparos tod 
Javdtov| 1. the figurative signification: body, in the sense of 
a sum total; mortifera peccati massa (Calvin). Compare vi. 
6. 2. the literal signification: the body as the subject and 
seat of physical death (Meyer). The first is preferable. The 
apostle desired something more than deliverance from his 
dying body. rovrov| this particular death which is the wages 
of sin, and which is a combination of physical and spiritual 
death. See comment on vi. 23. Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, 
Philippi, Olshausen make it to agree, by Hebraism, with 


TWLaros. 


VER. 25. xdpts] (se. ety) is the reading of B. Aith., Copt., 
Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. The Receptus, with A Peshito, 
reads évxapioro. This is the utterance of the regenerate, and 
not of the natural man. St. Paul expresses his own con- 
sciousness in immediate connection with the preceding ac- 


CHAPTER VII. 28. 221 


’ a A A / ( a ” 9 au NX Se % 
Inood Xpictod tod Kupiov pov. apa otv avTos éyo 
ns \ aa y , a aA \ \ , e 

TO pev vol SovrAevw vouw Jeod, TH Sé capKl vow dwap- 

Tias. 


count of his experience, all in the same present tense. The 
consciousness is one and continuous, from verse 14 to verse 
20 inclusive. The struggle with indwelling sin is accom- 
panied with the conviction of a victorious issue. It is vio- 
lent exegesis, to suppose that an epochal event like that of 
the new birth comes between verse 24 and verse 25; break- 
ing the self-consciousness into two halves, one of which is 
that of the lost man, and the other that of the saved. This 
is the view of Meyer, who remarks that ‘‘there is no change 
of person, but only of scene. The as yet unredeemed man 
sighs out his misery out of Christ; now he is zz Christ, and 
gives thanks for the happiness that has come to him in an- 
swer to his cry for deliverance.” But, tis pvoceras is not the 
form of a prayer for salvation from perdition. This would 
require the imperative mode (iAdéoJnri jor), and the direct 
address of the vocative. Compare Luke xviii. 13. od 
Xpiorov| Christ is both the author of the deliverance, and the 
mediator through whom thanks to God for it are presented. 
apa ovv| introduces an inference from the reasoning that be- 
gan with verse 14, and ends with joy in verse 25. This 
reasoning shows that the writer is a person who obeys the 
law of God in the main and principally, but who also more 
or less yields to indwelling sin. ards éyo] “I myself:” 
both the obedience and the disobedience are personal action. 
The éy® is comprehensive, including both the renewed na- 
ture, and the remainders of the old. The vots that serves 
the law of God, and the capé that serves the law of sin, con- 
stitute the airs éy. vot] is put for 7é vow Tod vods in verse 
23. See the comment. dovrcdw| denotes an activity that is 
habitual, and central. It is subjection. See the explanation 


999, COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


of dovAevw and dotAos, in vi. 16-20. At the same time, though 
in kind this activity is spiritual and holy, yet in degree it is 
not marked by the absolute perfection of the spiritual law 
(verse 14), by reason of the impeding and vitiating influence 
of 7 évotxotoa apaptia (verse 17). See comment on verse 18. 
The fact that St. Paul mentions his obedience of the law of 
God first in the order, shows that he regards this as the 
prominent fact in his present experience and moral state, 
vopw] is objective: the divine command, primarily as written, 
but inclusive of the unwritten. capxi] is the same as ¥ évot- 
Kovoa duaptia in verses 17, 20; as capxic in verse 18; and as 
vopios év pédcoly and vépos TAs éuaptias in verse 23. With the 
remainders of original sin (= indwelling sin), the apostle 
yields to the “law of sin.” The verb dovAedw must be sup- 
plied with capxi. But dovledw in this connection, cannot 
have so strong a meaning as in the preceding clause in con- 
nection with vouw Jeod. St. Paul does not serve sin so much 
as he serves holiness. His service of sin is indeed a subjec- 
tion and a bondage, so that he feels himself to be ‘sold 
under sin;” but it is not so radical and central a service as 
that by which he serves God. The latter service is accom- 
panied with love, peace, and joy; the former with aversion, 
unrest, and unhappiness. St. Paul loves Christ while he 
serves him; but hates Satan while he serves him. He is 
blessed in the first service; he is wretched in the last. Re- 
specting the former, he says ywaoKw, I€w, cvvyjSopat, xapis TO 
$6; respecting the latter, he says pod, od Jédw, wempapevos 
cit, TaAatropos dvIpwros. vopw| is subjective in its significa- 
tion: an actuating principle. Sin, unlike holiness, can be 
a “law” in the objective use of the term. There cannot be 
an external statute, given by a lawgiver, commanding a man 
to sin. Sin may be an inward principle of action, but not an 
outward commandment. Holiness is both. Hence there is 
a rhetorical contradiction in this phraseology of St. Paul, 


CHAPTER VII. %. 223 
that is unavoidable from the nature of the case. For when 
the apostle ‘serves the law of sin, with the flesh,” he serves 
indwelling sin, with indwelling sin. There is no external 
statute obeyed by the inward principle. But it is not so, in 
the other case. When St. Paul “serves the law of God, 
with the mind,” he obeys an objective law with a subjective 
principle. 

Recapitulating, then, the following are the reasons for re- 
ferring Rom. vii. 14-25 to the regenerate. 1. The present 
tense is uninterruptedly employed: aorists, imperfects, and 
pluperfects having been used in verses 7-14. 2. The plan 
of the Epistle favors this view. The apostle first shows that 
the law cannot justify the natural man, and then proceeds to 
show that it cannot sanctify him. ‘This latter is evinced, by 
considering the relation of the law, first, to original sin in 
the unregenerate (vil. 7-14); secondly, to indwelling sin in 
the regenerate (vii. 14-25). The law, in neither instance, 
can eliminate the depravity. 3. This view accords with 
the representations of scripture, which attribute remaining 
corruption, and a struggle therewith, to the regenerate. 
Sempere Isa. vi. 5; lv. 17, 18; Ps. xix. 12, 13; xxxviii. 
te epeeexix. 6, 11; xl. 12; li. 2,6, 105 Ixxvi. 35. lxxxvin) 73 
pune) CXXXIX. 23, 24; Rom. vill. 23, 26; Gal; vi 5: 
4. The wearisome and wearing conflict described, is in- 
consistent with the Scripture representations of the nat- 
ural man, as indifferent and at ease in sin. Compare Ps. 
Ixxiili. 4-12; cxix. 70; Mat. xiii. 13-15; Rom. ii. 9-18; 
vil. 8, 9. 

Meyer, at the close of his exegesis of this paragraph (in 
which he refers it to the unregenerate) remarks: “ The inter- 
pretation of verses 14-25 is of decisive importance, in respect 
to the church doctrine of original sin. If Paul is speaking in 
verse 14 sq. of the natural man, and not of the regenerate, 
then he predicates of the character of the natural man what 


Q94 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


the church dogma decidedly denies to it.” Meyer concedes 
that the exegesis that refers this paragraph to the unbeliev- 
er, is incompatible with the doctrine of total depravity. It 
supposes an element of holiness, slight and weak yet real, 
still remaining in man after the fall, which accounts for the 
struggle with sin that is ascribed, by this interpretation, to 
the unregenerate. 

It has been objected to the interpretation which finds the 
Christian experience in this paragraph, that its influence 
upon personal piety is injurious. But the searching scruti- 
ny into indwelling sin,-together with the doctrine that 7 és 
guilt, and must be resisted continually and unto blood, is 
adapted in the highest degree to promote humbleness of 
mind, great watchfulness and self-distrust, and reliance upon 
the Redeemer. Certainly nothing can be more demoralizing, 
than the denial that inward lust is sin, and the assertion that 
until it is acted out it is innocent. 


CHAPTER VIII. 


Sr. Pavt, in this chapter, continues to discuss the connec- 
tion between justification and progressive sanctification. 
There is no difference between the experience described in 
Rom. viii., and that delineated in vii. 14-25. The same con- 
flict between grace and indwelling sin is found in both chap- 
ters. The person in the seventh chapter who is “sold under 
sin” (vii, 14), and “serves with the flesh the law of sin” 
(vii. 25), and cries, ‘“‘O wretched man who shall deliver me” 
(vii. 24), and yet “thanks God through Jesus Christ” for 
his deliverance, and “serves with the mind the law of God” 
(vil. 25), belongs to that class in the eighth chapter, who 
have been “made free from the law of sin and death, by the 
law of the Spirit of life” (viii. 2), and yet are exhorted “ not 
to live after the flesh” (viii. 12), and to “ mortify the deeds 
of the body” (viii. 13); who ‘have received the spirit of 
adoption, crying Abba Father” (vill. 15), and yet “ groan 
within themselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the re- 
demption of the body” (viii, 23), and “ with patience wait 
for” sinless perfection and heavenly blessedness (viii. 25). 
Says Philippi, on Rom. vii. 13: “In the two passages, Rom. 
vii, 14—25, viii. 1-11, one immediately following the other, 
are re pictured the two aspects, ever appearing in Santee con- 
nection, of one and the same spiritual status; so that ‘the 
regenerate man, according as his glance is eecied to the 
one or the other aspect of his nature, is able to affirm of 
himself, as well what is said in vii. 23, 24, as what is said in 
vill, 2. Hence, also, he raises from his heart, with equal 


LO* 


225 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 

' O0d& apa viv Katdxpia tots év Xpict@e “Inood: 
* 6 yap vom“os TOU TvEevpaTtos THS Swis ev Xpiot@ ‘Inaod 
HrcEVIcpwoeV [LE ATO TOV VOm“oU THS ayapTias Kal Tov Ja- 


sincerity and truth, the twofold cry, ‘Wretched man,’ and 
‘J thank God.’” 


Ver. 1. otdévy| is highly emphatic, by its position: “none 
at all, of any kind.” dpa] is not a deduction from the single 
verse vii. 25 (Luther, Meyer, De Wette), but from the whole 
previous discussion of the nature and effects of the ducacoovvy 
Jeod (ili. 21—vil. 25). The last verse of the seventh chapter 
relates only to progressive sanctification, and to connect 
deliverance from condemnation with sanctification merely, 
would be extremely anti-Pauline. The apostle has in mind 
his previous account of the expiatory work of Christ, as is 
proved by his explanation of his meaning, in verse 3. viv] 
in this justified condition, i.e. Kxataxpysa| a sentence of con- 
demnation. See comment ony. 16. év Xpucra] the prepo- 
sition denotes the inward and spiritual relation of the be- 
liever to Christ. Compare viii. 9,10. The clause pa xara 
cdpka wepitatotow GAA KaTa mvedtwa is omitted by BBCODE 
Sahid., Copt.,. 4ith,, Griesbach, Mill, Lachm., Tisch., Tre- 
gelles. It is supported by AE Peshito (in part), Receptus. 
If retained, it is epexegetical of év Xpucrg@: those who are 
“in Christ ” conduct in this manner. It does not mention 
the ground of the freedom from condemnation, but a char- 
acteristic of those who have been freed, upon the ground of 
Christ’s tAacryjpuoy (ili. 25). “ Non assignari a Paulo causam, 
sed modum, quo solvimur a reatu.” Calvin in loco, 


Ver. 2. yap] introduces the statement of the reasons why 
there is no condemnation to a believer. There are two of . 
them: sanctification, mentioned in verse 2; and justifica- 
tion, mentioned in verse 3. The two are combined, kecause 


CHAPTER VIII. 2. 227 


it has been the object of St. Paul, in chapters vi. and vii., to 
prove that justification is not antinomian, but necessarily 
connected with sanctification. Pareus and Venema consider 
justification to be the subject of both verses. vopos| has 
here its subjective signification of an actuating “principle; 
and 6 vouos tov rvevputos THs Cwys is the same as 0 vomos TOD 
voos (vil. 23), and 6 éow dvdpwros (vil. 22), the limited éya 
(vii. 17, 20), and 16 qpovyya tod mvevparos (vili. 5). See the 
comment upon these passages. It designates the principle 
of holiness, the “‘new man.” zvevpartos tHs Cwns| the genitive 
of authorship: the Holy Spirit is the author of this vépos; 
mvevua Without the predicate rs Cons would denote merely 
the human zvedua; with it, the third person in the trinity is 
meant. Compare zveijua aywovvys, in i. 4, and comment. 
The Holy Spirit is the source and author of spiritual life, 
and by his efficiency originates the “law,” or principle, here 
spoken of. é Xpicrd] to be connected with ws (Luther, 
Beza); with voéuos (Semler); with vouos rod rvevparos tas Cwigs 
(Calvin); with #AevI¢pwrev pe (Theodoret, Erasmus, Riickert, 
Thoiuck, Olshausen, De Wette, Fritzsche, Meyer). The last 
is preferable. It is only as united to Christ, and in him, that 
such an inward and powerful law of action, and such spirit- 
ual freedom, is possible. jAevd€pwoev| Compare vi. 18, 22, 
and the comment. Sinless perfection is not meant; there 
are remnants of corruption. But there is freedom in the 
sense that sin shall not have “dominion,” or “lordship.” 
The “law of the Spirit of life,” in the believer, has overcome 
the “law of sin and death.” The “new man” has bound 
the “strong man.” The aorist signification is to be ob- 
served; referring to the time and act of regeneration, when 
the freedom was begun and established. je] is the reading 
of ACDEL Vulg., Sahidic, Receptus, Lachm.; and agrees 
better with the “1” so constantly employed in the preceding 
chapter; SBF Peshito, Tisch. read oe.’ voov tijs duaprias Kat 


228 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Tov Javatov| vouwos is subjective in signification. The inward 
principle of sin is meant; but original in distinction from 
indwelling sin: “sin in the unregenerate, as distinguished 
from sin in the regenerate” (Pareus in loco). The “law of 
sin and death” is not the equivalent of the “law in the 
members,” or the ‘‘law of sin in the members,” spoken of in 
vii. 23. It is more than this. It is the waAawds dvJpwros (vi. 
6); the principle of sin and death originated in Adam, and 
inherited from him. This has been slain, in the believer. 
The implanting of the new principle of divine life, in regen- 
eration, had freed St. Paul from “the law of sin and death,” 
but not from “the law in the members.” With the latter, 
he was still struggling in the manner described in vii, 14—25. 
But from the former he had been delivered. The curse and 
guilt of original sin was no longer resting upon him; and the 
domination of original sin as a controlling principle of action 
was destroyed. Only the dying remainders of it were left to 
‘molest and weary him. These made his life a severe race 
and fight, but not a defeat and failure. The difference be- 
tween original and indwelling sin, or between the “law of 
sin and death” and the “law in the members,” is like that 
between a serpent whole and uninjured, and a serpent cut 
into sections. The former is vital in the full sense, and in- 
creasing in the intensity and malignity of its life. The lat- 
ter is virtually dead, though the fragments exhibit for a long 
time, it may be, a lingering and varying activity. 


Ver. 3. ydp] introduces the second reason why there is no 
condemnation, making prominent the piacular work of Christ, 
—yerse 2 having referred to the work of the Holy Spirit in 
regeneration. 70 ddvvatov| 1. To be governed by 6.4, or kara, 
understood (Beza). 2. The object of éroince supplied before . 
6 Jeds (Erasm., Luther). 3. A parenthetical nominative- 
clause, in apposition with the proposition beginning with o | 


CHAPTER VIII. 3. 999 


a ae > , \ 

vatov. *TO yap advvatov Tod vogov, ev @ Haodéver Sia 
fol lal e e , 

THS capkes, 0 Jeds Tov éavTod viov Tréurpas év OpolmpaTe 
X ig 

gapkos auaptias Kal Tepi duaptias KaTéKplwey THY awap- 


Jeds and ending with wvetua in verse 4 (De Wette, Fritzsche, 
Meyer). The last is preferable. The thing that was impos- 
sible for the law to do (‘quod erat impossibile legi,” Vul- 
gate) was, to condemn sin, and also save the sinner. Simple 
condemnation of sin was no impossibility to the law, but its 
proper office. vopov] is objective in signification, and desig- 
nates the written law, yet inclusive of the unwritten. év | 
“ier the reason that:” Rom. ii. 1; Heb. ii. 183 vi. 173 2 Pet, 
ii, 12. qoteve.] denotes utter impotence, as inv. 6. The 
law was powerless to perform the dowble function of con- 
demning sin, and saving the sinner. 6a] assigns the reason 
of the impotence: the law is not weak per se, but through 
man’s sin. Compare vil. 7 sq. oapxds| sinful human nature. 
Compare vil. 5. 6 Jos] God the Father, as the context 
shows. The sending of the Son is the official work of the 
first trinitarian person, Juke u. 49; xxii. 49; John v. 36, 
37; xviii. 11; xx. 21. éavrod] “his own:” equivalent to the 
povoyevys of John i. 14, 18; ui. 16, 18; Heb. xi. 17; 1 John 
iv. 9; and the tdwos of John v. 18; Rom. viii. 32. These three 
epithets distinguish the eternal sonship of the second trini- 
tarian person, from the adoptive sonship of believers, spoken 
of in vill. 14-17, et alia. “The pre-existence and metaphysi- 
eal sonship of Christ are implied” (Meyer). déowpar.] See 
comment on v. 14; vi. 5. The reference is to that “‘ form of 
a servant ” (Phil. ii. 7; Heb. ii. 14; iv. 15) in which the “own 
son” of God was sent; implying that this was not the first 
and original form. The original form was 7 pop¢y Ieod, Phil. 
ii. 6. capxds| denotes, here, complete human nature, both 
physical and mental, consisting of both body and soul. 
Compare Mat. xxiv. 22; Luke iii. 6; John i. 14; iii. 63 vi. 


230 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


5is| Rom. i. 3; ix. 53° Coloss. i. 225.41 Timi am, 16; lene 
14. duaprias| the genitive of quality, showing that the 
human nature spoken of is a sinful and corrupt human 
nature, if contemplated in itself and apart from the miracu- 
lous conception by the Holy Ghost. The qualifying epithet 
Gwaprias describes human nature simply as it descends from 
Adam. As such, it is a sinful nature. St. Paul is contem- 
plating it from this point of view, only, when he employs 
this epithet. It does not follow that when a portion of this 
sinful and corrupt human nature is asswmed into wnrion with 
the Eternal Logos, it is still sinful and corrupt. In and by 
the miraculous conception, it is perfectly sanctified, so that 
though it is “sinful flesh,” or corrupt human nature, in 
Mary the mother, it is a “holy thing,” or perfect human na- 
ture, in Jesus the child... Compare Luke i. 35; 2 Cor. v. 21; 
Heb. iv. 15; x. 5; 1 Pet. ii, 22. The apostle desires to show 
the great condescension of the Eternal Son in his assump- 
tion of human nature. The Logos does not take into per- 
sonal union with himself a human nature created ex nihilo 
for this particular purpose, and which, consequently, could 
not be a cap€ duaptias, but he assumed into union with him- 
self a human nature that descended by ordinary generation 
from Adam down to the Virgin Mary (Luke ii. 388; Heb. ii. 
14), and which in ¢iis connection and relation was “ sinful 
flesh.” Before, however, it could become a constituent part . 
of the God-man, it must be entirely purged from the effects 
of the fall. The Logos thus humbled himself to the very 
lowest degree that was compatible with his own personal 
sinlessness. He could not unite himself to a nature that 
was sinful at the instant of the union, but he did unite him- 
self with a nature that once had been sinful, and required to 
be “prepared” for such a union (Heb. x. 5). See Pearson, 
On the Creed, Art. III.; Owen, Holy Spirit, II. iv.; Turre- 
tin, XIII. xi. 10; Wollebius, i. 16; De Moore, xix., § 14; 


CHAPTER VIII. 3 . 931 


Van Mastricht, IV. x. 5, 6; Calvin, II. xiii; Formula Con- 
cordize, De peccato originis. De Wette explains dpaprias by 
Christ’s temptability; but Christ’s temptability was a sinless 
susceptibility (Heb. v. 15). Pareus, and others, lay empha- 
SiS upon dpoupart, and explain accordingly: “ Assumsit car- 
nem veram, non peccatricem, sed peccatrici simile.” epi 
dpoptias| 1. to be connected with wépwas ; kai being omitted 
(De Wette, Meyer); 2. to be connected with kavexpwev 
(Chrys., Theod., Luther, Bengel). The latter is the neces- 
sary connection, if cai is retained, which is the reading of 
all the mss. Origen, Calvin, Melanchthon, Baur, Stuart, 
Hodge take dyaprias in the sense of a sin-offering. But this 
cannot be the signification of the following tiv dpapriav, 
which is the equivalent. The literal signification of both 
mept and dmapria is preferable: “in respect to sin.” Compare 
Gal. i. 4; Heb. x. 6, 8, 18; xiii. 11. The action designated 
by xaréxpwev indicates what particular element in sin is re- 
ferred to: viz., the element of guilt. xaréxpwev| denotes a 
judicial condemnation and infliction. Compare Mat. xx. 18; 
Puke xi, 31,32; 1 Cor. xi. 32; Rom. v. 16,17; viii. 1. Christ's 
suffering was a substituted penalty, by means of which sin 
was “condemned,” 7. ¢., vicariously punished. tiv dyapriav] 
the article denotes the well-known sin that came into the 
world, as described in v. 12, et passim. oapxi| is connected 
with xarékpwe, and designates the human nature of Christ. 
In and by means of his humanity, Christ endured that ju- 
dicial infliction which God the Father visited upon ‘his 
own” Son, for the purpose of expiating human guilt. It 
must be noticed that capxi here is not qualified by dpaprias, 
as in the Boots case; because the human nature is now 
viewed as a constituent part of the person of the God-man. 
It‘"s pure and immaculate capé. 


Ver. 4. iva] introduces the purpose of the action in verse 


232 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


4 > lal FF Qhi ty. \ i a f a 9 
Tiav €v TH capkt, * iva TO Sikalwpa Tod voyouv mANnpwIF év 
uly TOs L) KATA TapKa TEpLTTAaTODCLY GANA KATA TVEdMA. 


3. The condemnation of sin, by means of the atoning death 
of Christ, is in order to the fulfilment of the law, so that 
there shall be no karaxpysa tots év Xpurr@ (verse 1). Sexaiwpa] 
the requirement of the law: all that the law commands to be 
done. Luke i. 6; Rom. 1. 32; ii. 26; Heb. ix. 1. The sin: 
gular number denotes the totality of the requisition. This 
includes 1. obedience of the precept of the law; 2. endur- 
ance of the penalty of the law, in case of disobedience of the 
precept. An unfallen creature is obligated only by the first 
requirement; a fallen creature lies under the double obliga- 
tion. He owes perfect obedience for the future, and atone- 
ment for the past. aAnpwI7] denotes complete performance. 
Mat. iii. 15; v. 17; John xiii. 18; Rom. xiii. 8; Gal. v. 14; 
Coloss.-ii. 10. This perfect execution of all that the law 
requires from a fallen man is a vicarious, and not a personal 
performance. The believer does not atone for his past sin; 
neither does he perfectly obey in heart and life. Jesus Christ 
does both for him. The passive form, 7Anpw7, implies this. 
In this vicarious manner, the whole requirement of the law, 
regarding both precept and penalty, is fulfilled. St. Paul 
has explained this vicarious agency of Christ in Rom, iii. 
21-28; iv. 3-8, 22-25. He there teaches, that Christ’s work 
is imputed, or reckoned, to the believer. See comment. év 
npiv| in us, not by us; showing that God is the agent, and 
man the recipient, in justification. Man does not assist in 
the remission of sins. ois sy Kara, etc.| “as those who,” 
etc.: quippe qui. This clause is not appended to indicate 
the cause of the justification, but the necessary effect of it. 

hose to whom Christ’s work is imputed (iv. 24), and in 
whom the requirement of the law is thereby completely ful- 
filled (viii. 4), and to whom there is consequently no con- ~ 


CHAPTER VIII. 5. 233 


demnation (viii. 1), are a class of persons who are character- 
ized by a pious life, though not a sinless and perfect one. 
The imputed righteousness or justification, spoken of in 
verses 3 and 4, is accompanied with the inherent righteous- 
ness or sanctification, spoken of in verse 2. The former does 
not exist without the latter. St. Paul conjoins them, and 
mentions both, in proof that the believer is not in a state of 
condemnation. Whoever is regenerate and forgiven is not 
under the curse of the law. odpxa] is the contrary of the 
following zvetua, and denotes the principle of sin in the un- 
regenerate; and is equivalent to ‘‘the law of sin and death,” 
in vil. 2. It is anarthrous, to denote the species. epura- 
tovow| denotes the general conduct; the figure is taken from 
the habitual movements of the body. Believers do not, like 
unbelievers, invariably yield to the principle of sin. veda] 
is anarthrous to denote the species. It designates: 1. The 
Holy Spirit (Meyer, Hodge, Alford). 2. The principle of 
holiness in the regenerate (Chrysost., Bengel, Riickert, Phi- 
lippi, Harless). The latter view is preferable, 1. because of 
the antithesis with cdpxa. regenerate human nature is con- 
trasted with unregenerate; 2. because zvedya, here, is the 
Same as 6 vomos Tod Tvevparos, Just as caps is the same as 6 vopos 
THS Gpaptias Kai ToD Javarov, in viii. 2; 3. because this avedpa 
is described, subsequently, as ¢povnua: a human inclination, 
or disposition (viii. 5, 6). 


Ver. 5. yap] introduces the first reason why believers 
“walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit:” viz., be- 
cause every man walks according to his inward inclination 
or disposition. A second reason is given in verse 6, of 
évres| is substituted for oi repirarotow (verse 4), and is 
stronger than that: “they who exist only for the flesh.” 
kara oapxa| See comment on verse 4, ¢povotow] (from ¢pyv) 
is the emphatic word in the clause. It denotes, here, the 


934 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


5 e \ \ / ” A a XN a id \ 
ot yap KaTa odpKa dvTes Ta THs capKos Ppovovaw, ot dé 
KaTa Tvevpa TH TOU TVEdWaTOS: “TO yap Hpovnua THs 
gapKos Idvatos, TO Se hpovnua tod mveduatos Swi) Kab 


action of both the understanding and will, with a predomi- 
nant reference to the latter. Compare Mat. xvi. 23; Phil. 
iii. 19; Coloss. iii. 2. See, also, Beaumont and Fletcher’s 
Noble Gentlemen, iii. 1: “For I am minded to impart my 
love, to these good people and my friends.” Also Mat. xxi. 
37: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy mind.” 
They who live (ovres) and act (aepurarotow ) in conformity 
with the “law of sin and death,” show that they are inclined 
to sin. The conduct flows from an inward disposition. vev- 
pa (supply ovres); and rvevyaros (supply Ppovotow)] have the 
same meaning as in verse 4. They who live and act in con- 
formity with the “law of the spirit of life,” thereby show 
that they are ¢énclined to holiness. The daily life and con- 
duct, in each instance, is in accordance with the particu- 
lar inward and dominant principle (vojos) that is in the man. 
Consequently, believers live a devout life, because they have 
a renewed nature. 


Ver. 6. yap] introduces the second reason why believers 
” viz., be- 
cause the “flesh,” or the unregenerate nature, issues in 


“walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit: 


death, and the “ spirit,” or the regenerate nature, issues in 
life. ¢povnna] has the same signification with ¢povetow in 
verse 5. The “will,” or inclination, “of the flesh” desig- 
nates, not indwelling sin in the regenerate, but original sin 
in the unregenerate. It is the principle of evil in its full 
strength and domination. It is the same as 7 dpuaptia and 
e 2 , } se c , a ¢ 7 \ fal ra 

9 emudupia in vil. 7, 8; as 6 vopos THS Gmaptias Kal Tov Javarov 
in vill. 2; and % oapé in vii. 5; vill. 3. See comment on 
vill. 2. Javaros] See comment on i. 31; v. 12, 21. 70 dpov- 


CHAPTER VIII. 7. 935 


Both oy 7 5 r \ r a ” 9 > 9 rot 
eipnvn. woTt TO Ppdvnua THs capKos éyIpa eis Ieov 
TO yap vow TOD Jeod ovy broTdaceTat, oVSE yap SUvaTaL. 


nea tod mvevpatos| is the equivalent of the verbal form ra 
TOU TVevaTos Ppovovow in vill. 5; and is identical with rvredua 
in vill. 4; with 6 vopos Tod mvevparos THs CwyS In vill. 1; with 
vot in vil. 25; with 6 vouos tod vods in vil. 23; with 6 éow 
dvJpomos in vil. 22; and with the limited éy in vii. 17, 20. 
The “will,” or inclination, ‘‘of the spirit,” is the principle 
of holiness implanted in the believer by the Holy Spirit. 
Gw7]| See comment on ii. 7; v. 21. «ipyvy| See comment on 
i, 10; vy. 1. This feeling is the effect of the justification 
and sanctification that have been described as coexisting in 


the believer. 


Ver. 7. dire] (Rom. i. 19) introduces the reason why the 
“carnal mind,” or “ will of the flesh,” is death. €Ipa] hos- 
tility to God, who is the only source of blessedness. This 
is one of the tersest definitions of sin. yap] introduces the 
explanation of €xJpa. ovdx izoragceror] unsubmission to the 
law is the sign of enmity towards the Lawgiver. The rest- 
less struggle of self-will against righteous authority, is the 
root of all misery in the universe of God. ovdé dvvarax| there 
is no power in the “ will of the flesh,” or the principle of sin, 
to subject itself to the divine law. - Satan cannot cast out 
Satan. Compare Mat. vii. 18; xii. 26; John vi. 44, 653 viii. 
34; xv. 5; 1 Cor. 11. 14; 2 Cor. ii. 5. See comment on vi. 
16-20. yap] introduces the reason why the carnal inclina- 
tion is not subject to the law of God: viz., because there is 
an impossibility that it should be, from the very nature of 
such an inclination. Sedf-will, by the very idea and defini- 
tion of it, cannot obey another’s will. So long as such as 
vouos, or actuating principle, as the “ carnal mind,” remains 
in the voluntary faculty, it is impossible that this faculty 


936 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


8 € sy > ele Al , > a 9 ¢ a \ 
oi 8é év capt dvtes Jed apécas od Stvavtar. ° ipeis € 
ovx éoté év capkl adrA& ev Trvevpatt, elrep TrvEedpa Ieod 
nan a / lal n e 
oixel év tpiv. eb S€ Tis mvedpwa Xpictod ovK EyxEL, OUTOS 


should submissively obey the moral law. If it be then 
asked, if the will as a faculty can free itself from this VO}LOS, 
or inclination, the answer is in the negative, both from 
Scripture and the consciousness of man. The expulsion of 
the sinful inclination, and the origination of the holy ineli- 
nation, in the human will, is a revolution in the faculty 
which is accomplished only in its regeneration by the Holy 
Spirit. Self-recovery is not possible to the human will, 
though self-ruin is (Hosea xiii. 9). 


ra 


Ver. 8 repeats the sentiment of the preceding verse, in a 
concrete form. Verse 7 affirms that the carnal mind is inim- 
ical to God, and unable to be submissive to Him; verse 8 
affirms that carnally minded persons cannot please God. 4e] 
1. is transitive; “now” (De Wette, Philippi, Meyer, Lange); 
2. is equivalent to ovy (Beza, Calvin, Eng. Ver., Riickert, 
Hodge). The first is preferable, as this verse is not a de- 
duction from the preceding, but only a repetition of it. 
év capxi| is equivalent to xat& oapxa in verse 5; with the dif- 
ference, that the latter denotes the tendency, the former the 
sphere in which. dpéoa| Compare 1 Thess. 11. 15. 


Ver. 9 applies, in a negative form, to Christian believers, 
the foregoing statement respecting the impossibility that 
one who has the carnal mind can serve and please God, év 
aapxt| See comment on verse 8. év zvevpare] the contrary of 
év capxil. See comment on verses 4-6. <«izep] 1. “since ” 
(Chrysost., Olshausen, et alii); 2. “if so be” (Calvin, Meyer). 
Hither sense is possible. Compare Rom. iii. 30, 1 Cor. viii. 
5, 2 Thess. i. 6, with 1 Cor. xv. 15. Either sense is possible 

énie this verse, as it is in Rom. viii. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 3. The first’ 


CHAPTER VIIL 9. IST 


signification is favored by Rom. vi. 17-22; vii. 4-6; viii. 1-4. 
In these passages, St. Paul does not speak doubtfully, but 
affirms that they to whom he is writing have been freed from 
the principle of sin, and are enslaved to righteousness, and 
are no longer év capxt. The second signification is favored 
by the following clause: «i 62, ete.; which implies the possi- 
bility of self-deception, and urges to self-examination, tvedua 
Jeov| the Holy Spirit, who is the author of the renewed hu- 
man zvevua, Which has been described in the preceding con- 
text. The two are mentioned together in viii. 16.  oixet] 
denotes constant residence and influence: the immediate 
operation of the third trinitarian person upon the human 
soul, implying the action of spirit upon spirit. Compare 
Jonmexive 16, 17,23; xv. 26; xvi. 7, 13, 14; Rom: vi. 15, 
Beeeecore(s Cor. 11, 10, 11s. ii. 165 vi. 17, 19; 2 Tim: i 
14. wvedpa Xpiorod| is identical with wvetya Jeod in the pre- 
ceding clause. This is a proof text not only for the deity of 
Christ, but for the doctrine of the procession of the Holy 
Spirit from both Father and Son. As bearing upon Arian- 
izing views, we cite the exegesis of Meyer (in loco): “ avedyua 
Xpicrovd (compare Phil. i. 19; 1 Pet. i. 11) is no other than 
the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God. He is denominated the 
Spirit of Christ, because the exalted Christ imparts himself 
in and with the Paraclete (John xiv.); and because, whoever 
has not this Spirit, is not a member of Christ: ot« éorw 
aitod (i. e., Xpiorod). Kéllner’s distinction between the 
Spirit of God as the highest rveijua—the source of all finite 
mvedtua—and the Spirit of Christ, as a lower and manifested 
mvedpa, is not necessitated by Rom. viii. 10, 11, and is de- 
cidedly forbidden by Gal. iv. 6 compared with Rom. viii. 14—- 
16.” atrot the genitive, here, is pregnant: comprehending 
the several conceptions of ownership, authorship, and mem- 
bership.. Compare 1 Cor. i. 12; ili. 23; vi. 15; vil. 225 xv. 
20; 2 Cor, x. 7; Gal, iii. 29; v. 24. 


238 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


> vy > fal 10 ’ \ \ I] € a X \ A 
ovK é€oTW avtov. “ et dé Xpiotos ev tyiv, TO pmev Copa 
\ nN: c , \ \ na \ \ tA 
vexpov dia apaptiav, TO bé mvedpa Cor) Sia SuKavoovygy. 


Ver. 10 is adversative to the last clause of the preceding 
verse, «i de] “ But if, on the contrary.” Xpucrds]| is identi- 
eal with veda Xpurrod (ver. 9), which is the equivalent of 
mvedpa Jeod (ver. 9). Compare 2 Cor. xii. 5; Coloss. i. 27. 
The mystical (mysterious) union of the believer with the 
Redeemer is meant. oépa| the material body, in distinction 
from the renewed immaterial soul, or spirit (veda). — vexpor| 
denotes physical death; the penalty of sin so far as the body 
is concerned. Though not actually dead, it is destined to 
die: “ mortuum pro moriturum ” (Bengel). Compare Ivyra 
gwuata, vy. 11. Physical death still happens to the believer, 
though the “sting,” or retributive element in it, is extracted 
by the comforting presence of God in articulo mortis (Aug., 
Calvin, Pareus, Beza, Vitringa, Bengel, Tholuck, Riickert, 
Usteri, Fritzsche, Meyer, Wordsworth, Hodge). dia dpap- 
tiav| sin is the cause and reason of death, v. 12. zvetpa] 
not the Holy Spirit (Chrysost., Theophyl., Calvin, Grotius); 
nor the human zvedua, in distinction from, and excluding the 
human yxy. the higher nature of man comprising reason, 
will, and conscience, in their natural condition (Meyer); but 
the regenerate human rvedpa as opposed to the capa only 
(Theodoret, De Wette, Philippi, Hodge). The regenerate 
mvevua comprises both \the rvedua and the yyy, of St. Paul’s 
catalogue in 1 Thess.v. 23. In regeneration, the Holy 
Spirit, the divine zvedua, renovates both the human zvedya, 
and the human yyy; so that the two are a regenerate unity. 
In 1 Pet. ii. 11, yxy is put for this unity. All the powers 
of man, both higher and lower, are renewed and sanctified 
in the new birth, Hence, the term yvyy, in the New Testa- 
ment, is most commonly used in the wide signification, to 
denote the synthesis of rvedua and yw x7, as the opposite of 


CHAPTER VIII. 10. 939 


oapa, Compare Mat. x. 28; Mark xiv. 34; Luke i.46; John 
xii, 27; Acts ii. 43; Rom. ii. 9; xiii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 45, et 
passim. The only instances in which zvedjua and Wvyy are 
discriminated from each other, and employed in the re- 
stricted signification, are Phil. i. 27; 1 Thess. v. 23; Heb. 
iv. 12. When this distinction is made, the purpose seems 
to be, to mark off the higher from the lower mental powers; 
similarly as, in the Kantian philosophy, the ‘“ understand- 
ing” is distinguished from the “reason,” though both alike 
belong to that unity which constitutes the soul in distinction 
from the body. And as the terms “understanding,” and 
“reason” are employed interchangeably to denote this uni- 
ty, so the terms yyy} and mredpa are employed in the New 
Testament interchangeably to designate it. Compare Mat. 
xxvil. 50; Luke i. 47. In common English usage, the hu- 
man “soul” is the equivalent of the human “spirit; ” while 
yet there are cases in which the connection of thought re- 
quires a distinction to be made between them. Wvyy is used 
with more latitude than zvetya; the latter never denotes the 
mere animal life, the former sometimes does (Mat. ii. 20). 
When both yyy and zeta are viewed as a unity, and as 
actuated by the “law of sin and death,” this unity is denom- 
inated oap& This is the unregenerate man, or the “old 
man.” When, on the contrary, they are actuated by the 
“law of the Spirit of life,” the unity is denominated mvedua 
as the contrary of capé. This is the regenerate man, or the 
“new man.” And this is the use of wvedpa here. The hu- 
man body (céya) is mortal and destined to death; but the 
regenerate human soul, or spirit (zvedua), is alive, and shall 
‘never die. Compare John vi. 50,51; xi. 26. fw] is strong- 
er than fov. See comment on ii. 7; v. 21; vili. 6. dua dexato- 
ovvyv| the ground or reason why ‘‘the spirit is life.” 1. The 
imputed righteousness, described in lil. 21, 24; iv. 5, 6, et 
alia (The elder Protestant dogmatists, generally, Reiche, 


240 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


11 > \ \ a ine, / \ > A > a 
et O€ TO TvEedua TOU éyelpavTos Tov "Incody éx vexpav 


> Cope 72) (eee Ag > / \ > A bd a 
oixel ev vuly, 0 éyeipas Xpiotov “Inoodv éx vexpav fwo- 


Fritzsche, Meyer). ‘“ As 6.4 duapriav refers not to individual 
sins, but to the éf’ @ wavres juaptov in vy. 12, so dia duxavoovvyv 
refers not to individual but to imputed righteousness” 
(Meyer in loco). This view is favored by 6 with the ac- 
cusative. 2. The subjective and inherent righteousness 
described as the “law of the mind,” the “inner man,” the — 
“law of the Spirit of life” (Hrasmus, Grotius, De Wette, 
Tholuck, Philippi, Hodge). It is preferable to combine 
both, since St. Paul has previously mentioned both justifica- 
tion and sanctification as the reason why there is ‘‘no con- 
demnation to them that are in Christ Jesus (viii. 1-4). It 
is still his object to show that the two are inseparably con- 
nected, in answer to the charge of antinomianism in vi. 1 
sq., 15 sq.; and vii. 7. The renewed soul has eternal life 
because it is justified and sanctified. 


Ver. 11. This verse teaches that that remnant of evil 
which still overhangs the body shall be finally removed. 
The power of physical death over the cdma is to be destroyed 
by the power of the resurrection. 76 zvedua] the Holy Spirit 
= 70 tvebpa THs Cons (ver. 1) = zvedpa Jeot = azvedpa Xpiorod 
(ver. 9). The interchange shows that the indwelling of the 
Holy Spirit is essentially the same as the indwelling of 
Christ. These two trinitarian persons are one and the same 
essence subsisting in two different modes. Consequently, 
an official or personal work of one does not exclude the 
other from a participation in it. The entire divine essence 
acts, whenever a particular divine person acts; but this 
essence is all in each person. od éyelpavytos| i. e., Tod Jeod 
éyeipavros. Compare Acts ii. 24, 32; iii. 15, 265; iv. 10; v. 
30; xxvi. 8; 1 Cor. vi. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 14. oixet] See comment ” 


ES Fe Pn POT 


CHAPTER VIII. 11. 941 


mouoe Kal Ta Svnta copata buav Sia TOU EévotKxodyTOS 
aQvTov MVEvpaTos ev vplv. 


on verse 9. Xpuiordv “Inoody] is the reading of SADE Peshito, 
Vulgate, Copt., Aith., Tisch. Jesus is the personal, and 
Christ the official name. The first is the more tender and 
affectionate designation: ‘‘ Jesus, lover of my soul,” ete. 
“ Appellatio Jesu spectat ad ipsum; Christi refertur ad 
nos” (Bengel). Christ, rather than Jesus, is the name of 
the God-man as the head of the Church, and the archetype 
of the resurrection. Hence the change from Jesus to Christ 
Jesus inthe sentence. fworojoe] is in the place of éyepet, for 
the sake of the correlation with Gw7 in verse 10. Some com- 
mentators (Calvin and others) suppose a twofold reference, to 
the quickening of both soul and body. But the subject of 
regeneration and sanctification has already been discussed; 
so that only the resurrection is intended. Jvyra] refers to 
vexpov in verse 10. The body is mortal, ‘because of sin.” 
dua Tod evorxotvTos airov tvevuaros| Compare 2 Tim. i.i4. This 
reading is supported by SAC Copt., A‘th., Rec., Lachm. (1st 
ed.), De Wette, Tholuck, Tisch. The reading dé 7d évorxodv 
avTov mvevua is supported by BDEL Peshito, Vulg., Erasmus, 
Griesbach, Mill, Bengel, Lachm. (2d ed.), Fritzsche, Meyer, 
Philippi, Tregelles. The weight of authority, so far as the 
uncials and early versions are concerned, is on the whole in 
favor of the Receptus reading. The charge and counter- 
charge of an alteration of the reading, made by the Macedo- 
nians and the orthodox, only shows that there was a differ- 
ence in the manuscripts in the year 381. The genitive 
reading is fayored by the preceding context, in which the 
Holy Spirit has been described as the author and source of 
life: 70 zvedua tis CwAs (ver. 2). St. Paul connects the resur- 
rection of the body with the regeneration of the soul. Soul 
and body constitute one human person, so that the renova- 


942 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


12 9 9 3 / > , > X > a \ a 
Apa ovr, ddehopot, opethetat eoHEY (Ov Tia mapAl tee 

/ lol ‘ss lal f 
Kata cdapKka Civ. “ev yap Kata oapKka Cire, pmédreTe 
atodvycKew. eb O€ TVEevpaTL Tas Tpakes TOD TwpaTos 


tion of the former naturally carries with it that of the latter. 
And the author of the former is naturally the author of the 
latter. Regeneration and resurrection are two parts of one 
entire purpose and process of redemption. If God has ae- 
complished the first, he certainly will the last. aivrod] is 
highly emphatic, by its collocation between the substantive 
and its participle. 


Ver. 12 contains an inference, introduced by dpa ovy, from * 
verses 10 and 11. The “glorious” (1 Cor. xy. 43) resurree- 
tion of the “celestial” (1 Cor. xv. 40) body, which results 
from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul, is a mo- 
tive to live a devout and pious life. dédeAerar] there is no 
obligation to sin; the relation of debtor obtains only toward 
righteousness. oapxi] the same as the following oadpxa. od 
Gjv| the genitive either of design or result. «ara odpxa}] See 
comment on viii. 4, 5. St. Paul does not supply the apodo- 
Sis, Viz.: d\Aa Td TVEVpaTL, TOD KaTa TvEipa Cv; either because 
it is self-evident, or because of the rapidity of his thought. 


Ver. 13 mentions the reason, introduced by ydp, for the 


statement in verse 12. kata odpxa Gyre] = Kata oapKa ovTes 
(ver. 5) = xara odpxa weputarodvres (ver. 4). A life and con- 


duct flowing from a corrupt nature is meant. péddere] de- 
notes the certainty resulting from the divine decision, and 
not mere futurition: péAdew signifies, ‘certum et constitutum 
esse, secundum vim fati.” EHllendt Lex. Soph.,ii. 72. “Ye 
are destined to die.” Compare iv. 24.  dzoIvjcKxew]| the con- 
trary of the following éjoeoJe: eternal death (Meyer). It is 
comprehensive of all the penal evil that is inflicted upon sin. 
See the explanation of Jdvaros in v. 12, That eternal death 


CHAPTER VIII. 13. 243 


is compatible with the resurrection of the body, is proved by 
Mat. x. 28; John v. 28,29; Acts xxiv. 15; Daniel xii. 2. The 
reanimation of a human body to “the resurrection of damna- 
tion,” is a part of the penalty of sin. avevpare] 1. the Holy 
Spirit (Meyer); 2. the regenerate human spirit (Theodo- 
ret, Philippi). We adopt the second view, in consonance 
with the interpretation of rvedua given in verses 4, 5, 6, 9, 
10. See comment on verses 4 and 6. St. Paul still has in 
view the conflict in the believer between the new nature 
and the remainders of the old; and is presenting motives for 
walking according to the former, and not the latter. In this 
connection and antithesis, consequently, zvedua denotes re- 
generate human nature: zvedua is put for vopos Tod rvevparos, 
as vovds is put for voyos Tov vods in vii. 23, 25. If the believer, 
by means of the principle of holiness, or ‘‘the law of the 
Spirit of life,” mortifies the remainders of the principle of 
sin, or “the law in the members,” he shall five. ‘Not to be 
daily employing the spirit and new nature for the mortify- 
ing of sin, is to neglect that excellent succor which God 
hath given us against our greatest enemy. If we neglect to 
make use of what we have received, God may justly hold his 
hand from giving us more. Not to be daily mortifying sin, 
is to sin against the grace of God, who hath furnished us 
with a principle of doing it.” Owen, Mortification, Ch. i. 
See Gal. v. 16-25, where the same antithesis between the hu- 
man odpé and the human zvedya appears, and the “lusts” of 
each are mentioned as antagonizing each other. A “lust of 
the spirit ” is not a lust of the third trinitarian person; but 
of the regenerated human spirit, in whom the Holy Spirit 
dwells. The proper seat of the spiritual “lust,” or holy de- 
sire, is the human person, and not the divine. The latter is 
the author and cause of it, but not the subject of it. apa&es] 
the habits and practices. Compare Luke xxiii. 51; Acts xix. 
18; Coloss. iii. 9. The zpdges tod c&matos are the same as 


944 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS, 


Ta épya THs capkos (Gal. v.19), and 1a wadjpara rijs oapKds 
(Gal. v. 24). odparos] is the reading of SABCL Peshito, 
Sahid., Copt., Aith., Ree., Lachm., Tisch. The reading cap- 
kos is found in DEF Vulg. eparos is here put for odpkos 
(Pareus, Owen, De Wette, Reiche, Alford). ‘‘ Actiones cor- 
poris sunt motus et opera carnis peccatricis.” Pareus in loco. 
This view is opposed by Meyer, and others. But that the 
two terms, though not identical, may be used as equivalents, 
is proved by Mat. xxvi. 26; John vi. 51; Acts ii. 31; Rom. 
xi, 28; 1 Cor; xv. 39; Eph. ii. 11; v. 29; Colosshieeiaee. 
Heb. ix.:13; Jude 8. In 2 Cor. iv. 10; 11)-thesememm 
exchanged for the other. That the antithesis requires an 
equivalent to oapxos is plain; because, to mortify the body 
is the same as not to live after the flesh. The writer implies 
that the one death is identical with the other. The ‘ body” 
may well stand for the “flesh,” although it is not so compre- 
hensive a term, because it is the visible organ through which 
the principle of sin manifests itself. Compare vi. 12, 13, 
19; vii. 5, 23, where the ‘“ mortal body,” with its “mem- 
bers,” is put for the entire man as corrupt. See comment 
in locis. Javarotre] the sinful habits and practices of the 
body are killed in the believer, by suppressing their outward 
manifestation, because of the principle of divine life within 
him. Here is one of the differences between the renewed 
and the unrenewed man. The unregenerate might suppress 
the outward manifestation of sin, and yet no inward death 
of sin would result, because there is no “law of the Spirit 
of life,’—no avedpa, as the contrary of ocapé,—within him, 
to fight with and slay the “law of sin and death” (vii. 2). 
There is only one principle in the unregenerate, and this is 
the principle of sin. Merely to repress its manifestations, 
would not result in its extirpation. ‘“‘ Mortification is not 
the business of unregenerate men; conversion is their work. 
The conversion of the whole soul, not the mortification of 


CHAPYER VIII. 14. 945 


a , 146° \ Bi a ” 
Savatoite, EnoecJe. door yap mvevpatt Jeod ayovTat, 
ovTOL viol evowv Jeod. 


this or that particular lust.” Owen, On Mortification, Ch. 
vii. The Christian duty to mortify indwelling sin is urged 
in Gal. v. 24; Coloss. iii. 5. See Owen, On the Mortification 
of Sin in Believers; and Holy Spirit, IV. viii. {joeoJe] eter- 
nal life is meant. See comment on vi. 22, 23. 


Ver. 14. yap] introduces the reason why those shall “live ” 
_who mortify the deeds of the body. avevpate Ieod] is the 
Holy Spirit. The regenerate rveipa (= vojos Tod mvevparos), 
or the principle of divine life, is neither self-originated, nor 
self-sustained. The “new man,” or “ inward man,” or “law 
of the mind,” or “law of the Spirit of life,” or “spiritual 
mind,” is the product of God the Holy Ghost regenerating 
and indwelling. In this eighth chapter we find the Holy 
Spirit, in distinction from the regenerate human spirit, men- 
tioned ten times: viz.: “Spirit of life” (ver. 1); “Spirit of 
God” (ver. 9, 14); “Spirit of Christ ” (ver. 9); “Spirit that 
raised Christ” (ver. 11); “Spirit that indwells” (ver. 11); 
“Spirit that witnesses” (ver. 16); “Spirit having first fruits” 
(ver. 25); “Spirit that helps” (ver. 26); “Spirit that inter- 
cedes” (ver. 26). dyovrac] Compare John vi. 44, where the 
same agency is designated as “drawing.” These words 
imply that the Divine agency is prior, in the order, to the 
human. ovroi| is emphatic by position, and the emphasis is 
excluding: “these, and no others.” viof] Christian sonship 
is intended: denoting 1. Similarity of disposition, Mat. v. 9, 
45; Gal. iii. 7. 2. An object of peculiar affection, Rom. ix. 
26; 2 Cor. vi. 18. 3. One entitled to peculiar privileges, 
‘Deut. xiv. 1; Hosea i. 10; Rom. ix. 4; 1 John iii. 2. These 
particulars discriminate Christian sonship, which is founded 
upon adoption, from natural sonship, which is based upon 


246 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


* ov yap €daBeTe Tvevpa Sovrelas TadL eis hoBov, ANd 
ead Pere Tvedpa viodecias, ev @ Kpdfouev ABBA 6 TaTip. 


creation and is applicable to all men indiscriminately, either 
as subjects of the divine government, or as related to each 
other. Natural sonship, in its various modes and forms, is 
mentioned in Gen. iv. 20, 21; v. 3; Job xxxviii. 28; Malachi 
li. 10; Luke xvi. 25; Acts xvii. 28; James i. 1%. 


Ver. 15 contains a proof of the statement in verse 14, de- 
rived from the experience of the persons addressed. eAdBere] 
the aorist signification is to be retained: “ye did not re- 
ceive,” when ye received the Holy Spirit, i.e. avedua] is 
subjective, denoting a temper or disposition of the zvetya. 
Compare Rom. xi. 8; 1 Cor. ii. 12; iv. 21; 2 Tim.i. 7%. Sim- 
ilarly, the English word ‘‘mind” may denote the immaterial 
substance, objectively; or the mood and temper of it, sub- 
jectively. The article is omitted, because a particular kind 
of disposition is meant. dovAcias] the genitive of description. 
The temper, in question, is servile: that of a trembling slave 
before a hated taskmaster. addw] previous to the reception 
of the Holy Spirit, in their regeneration, they had possessed 
the spirit of bondage. They were then not under grace, but 
under law (vi. 14); and “the law worketh wrath” (iv. 15). 
The legal spirit has nothing genial or spontaneous in it: no 
enjoyment. This wretched spirit, or frame of mind, was not 
introduced a second time, by the reception of the Holy 
Ghost. is] denotes the tendency and result of the spirit of 
bondage. ¢0fov] fear is the principal impression made by 
the moral law, upon the unbeliever. ‘‘ The law can do noth- 
ing but restrain by the threat and dread of death; for it 
promises no good except under condition of perfect obedi- 
ence, and denounces death for a single transgression.” Cal- 
vin in loco. éAdere] is repeated for the sake of impressive- 


CHAPTER VIII. 15. Q47 


ness. Compare 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7; Phil. iv. 17. veda] has the 
same subjective signification as in the preceding clause. 
viodecias] the genitive of description. It is not put simply 
for vidrys, “‘sonship ” (Chrys., Theod.); because it is the ob- 
ject of the writer to indicate the peculiar nature of the son- 
ship. The sonship in question is not the natural sonship 
which results from generation, as in the instance of the eter- 
nal and only begotten Son, or from creation, as in the in- 
stance of men and angels; but it is the adoptive sonship, 
which results from a gracious act of God constituting and 
establishing it. Meyer remarks that viodecia is the proper 
term for adoption, and cites Plato, Legum, xi. 929, where 
viov JéeoJor and Jerov vidv roujcacJa are the phrases employed. 
See comment on zarépa réJeud ce, in Rom. iv. 17. & @| the 
element in which, and the power by which. «paouev] the 
term for fervent supplicatory prayer. Gal. iv. 6. da] is 
the Greek form of the Syriac wan, for the Hebrew 2x. Com- 
pare Mark xiv. 36; Gal. iv. 6. Wolfius (in loco) quotes a 
passage from the Talmud, showing that bond servants were 
not allowed by the Jews to call their master NIN, this being 
an appellation which only children might use. aaryjp] 1. an 
explanation of the Syriac word, for Greek readers (Riickert, 
Reiche, Hodge, and others). This does not seem natural, in 
such an ardent train of thought; 2. a repetition of the name, 
characteristic of the fond familiarity of a child (Chrys., Theo-. 
dore Mops., Grotius, Alford); 3. the two terms express the 
fatherhood of God, for both Jews and Gentiles (Aug., An- 
selm, Calvin); 4. 4d8@a has become a proper name, under- 
stood and employed by Greek-speaking Christians, with 
which their own 6 zaryp is joined in the ardor of petition 
(De Wette, Philippi, Meyer). The last view is preferable; 
for this is what occurs in every instance in which the Scrip- 
tures are translated into any language. Compare the terms 
Jehovah, Christ, ete. 


248 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


© QUTO TO TVEDLA TUYMAPTUPEL TO TVEvMATL U@V OTL EopeEev 
el 6€ Téxva, Kal KANpOVowoL* KANPOVEMoL [EV 


17 


Texva Seod. 


Ver. 16. A fuller explanation of év & kpafopev, etc. aitro| 
“himself.” Compare Luke xxiv. 15; John xvi. 27. 70 avev- 
pa] the Holy Ghost. cvvpaprupet] the force of the preposi- 
tion is to be retained. There are two persons actually con- 
cerned: the believer, and the third trinitarian person. The 
latter co-witnesses with the former, and confirms the testi- 
mony of the believer’s consciousness. It is as if, when the 
believer says: “Iam a child of God,” the Holy Spirit made 
answer: ‘‘Thou art indeed a child.” In this reference, Pa- 
reus quotes John viii. 17: ‘‘ The testimony of two men is 
true.” Yet all this occurs in the unity of a single self-con- 
sciousness. The human spirit is not conscious of the Divine 
Spirit, as of an agent other than and distinct from itself. 
This is enthusiasm, in the bad sense. The Holy Ghost is 
indeed an agent distinct from and other than the human 
soul; but there is no report to this effect, in the immediate 
consciousness here described. The believer would not have 
known that there is another person than himself concerned 
in this confident personal assurance of adoption, had it not 
been taught to him. His own mind makes no report of two 
agents, or persons. The witness of the Spirit is not a doc- 
trine of psychology, but of revelation. At the same time, 
that it is not a doctrine repellant to human reason, is shown 
by the damav of Socrates. The assurance of faith is the 
highest degree of saving faith. The former is described in 
2 Tim. 1. 12; iv. 7, 8; the latter, in Mark ix. 24. The first 
is the “blade;” the last, the ‘full corn in the ear.” vev- 
part ypov| the regenerate human spirit, as in verses 4, 4, 6, 
9,10, 13. réxva] a tenderer term than viot, Gal. iv. 28. 


Ver. 17. A deduction of consequences, from verse 16.~ 


CHAPTER VIII. 18. 249 


lal , \ a by ; (74 
> 
Jeod, cvvedAnpovoyor Se Xpictod, eitep cuvrrdcyomev iva 
Kal cuvoogacIapev. 
* AoyiCouat yap OTe ovK a&ia Ta Tadjnpata Tov viv 


Heirship follows from sonship. 0d] God is regarded not 
as the deceased testator, but the living dispenser of his 
wealth. Compare Luke xv. 12. ovvedypdvopor dé] a more 
specific description of the children; Christ being their elder 
brother (verse 29), they have a share in the kingdom of God 
with him. According to the Roman law, the inheritance of 
the first-born is no greater than that of the other children; 
according to the Hebrew law, it was double. Some com- 
mentators (Fritzsche, Tholuck) suppose St. Paul to have the 
Roman law particularly in his eye; but this would be utterly 
incongruous with St. Paul’s feeling, and that of every true 
disciple, toward the Lord. Compare 1 Cor. xv. 8, 9. Fel- 
lowship in the inheritance, and not equality in it, is the chief 
thing. «izep| See comment on verse 9. cuv7acyxopev| suffer- 
ing on account of the gospel is fellow-suffering with Christ. 
Mat. xx. 22; 1 Pet.iv. 13. wa] the predetermined purpose 
of God. 

The paragraph ver. 18-31 contains three reasons for en- 
during suffering with Christ: 1. the present suffering is far 
outweighed by the future blessedness (ver. 18-25); 2. the 
Holy Spirit helps the believer to endure (ver. 26, 27); 3. 
everything, be it joy or sorrow, inures to the ultimate good 
of the children of God (ver. 28-31). 


Ver. 18. oyilopar] denotes, here, a confident judgment, 
as in ii. 3; ill. 28. yap] introduces the succeeding reason 
for endurance. ovx d&a| not of sufficient weight or conse- 
quence: “worth” has no reference to merit (Papal exe- 
getes), but is employed as in the English phrase, “worth 
while.” rot viv xatpov] is like 6 viv aiwy in Mat. xii. 32: a tem- 


250 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


katpod Tpos Tiv pédAdovcav Sokav amoxahuPIhvar eis 
nas. “1 yap atoKapacokia THs KTicews THY aTroKaA- 


porary duration. pos] “in comparison with ”: ovdevds ats 
ott Tpos THY GAnJeav, Plato, Gorgias, 371. pédAdAoveay] is em- 
phatic by position. d0av] has here, principally, an objective 
meaning: the divine glory that accompanies the final advent 
of Christ. Compare 1 Tim. vi. 14, 15; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Titus 
il. 18; 1 Thess. iii. 138; 2 Thess. i. 10; 11. 1-4; James v. 7, 8; 
2 Pet. iii. 4; iii. 12. The splendor of this future triumph 
of Christ and his church, will far outweigh their present 
despised and suffering condition. is] not “in” (Eng. Ver.), 
but “unto.” Though there is an inward revelation asso- 
ciated with the outer, yet the latter is chiefly in mind, as the 
context shows. ! 


Ver. 19. yap] introduces the proof that there is to be a 
glorious appearing of the Redeemer. dzoxapadoxia] kapasdoxety 
signifies to look for something with uplifted head: azo is in- 
tensive. The earnestness with which the ‘ creature” expects 
the future epiphany is proof that it will certainly occur; other- 
wise, the longing would be a mockery. The argument is de- 
rived from the connection between any fixed form of human 
consciousness, and its correlative object. The craving of 
hunger demonstrates that there is food somewhere; of 
thirst, that there is water somewhere. A world of cravings 
and expectations, without their correlates, would be an irra- 
tional one. In like manner, to suppose that the “ creature ” 
should steadily and unceasingly long after a mere phantasm 
and fiction, is absurd. xricews] denotes: 1. the creative 
act, Rom. i. 20; 2. the created thing, Mark x. 6; xiii. 19; 
Coloss. i. 15; 2° Pet. iti. 4; Mark xvi. 15; Coloss, 1. 23. 
In this place, it has the second signification. The vari- 
ous explanations of the meaning of xriovs, here, are reduc- 


CHAPTER VIII. 19. 951 


ible to the following: 1. The material creation, animate 
and inanimate, organic and inorganic (Irenzeus, Jerome, Am- 
brose, Chrysost., Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, 
Pareus, Calovius, F’. Turretin, Wolfius, De Wette, Fritzsche, 
Tholuck, Neander, Meyer, Philippi, Haldane, Chalmers, Al- 
ford, Hodge); 2. The rational creation: mankind generally, 
exclusive of believers (Augustine: Expos. ad Rom., 53, who 


fears Manichzism, if material nature be regarded as ‘ 


* groan- 
ing,” Locke, Lightfoot, Semler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Stuart); 
3. The whole creation, material and rational, as unredeemed 
and craving redemption (Origen, Theodoret, Rosenmuller, Ols- 
hausen, Lange, Schaff, Forbes); 4. Redeemed men: the entire 
paragraph referring only to the church. Those who have 
“the first fruits of the Spirit” are the apostles, in distinction 
from the body of Christians (Ittig, Deyling, Lampe). Wol- 
fius, though adopting the first view, regards this last expla- 
nation as next in value. The first view is favored by both the 
nearer and the remoter context. St. Paul has spoken of the 
glorious resurrection of the body (ver. 11). Hence, it is nat- 
ural that he should speak of that external world in which the 
body dwells. He has also spoken of the glorious advent of 
Christ, at the end of this material world (ver.18). It is nat- 
ural that he should speak of the alteration in this material 
world which is to occur, according to many scripture pas- 
sages, at that time. As the body of the believer was made 
subject to death on account of sin, but is to be raised in 
glory; so, that outward world in which the believer’s body 
resides was cursed (Gen. iii. 17-19), but is to be repristinated 
as a suitable dwelling-place for it. There being this connec- 
tion and correlation between the believer’s body and the visi- 
ble world, it is not unnatural that a yearning for this re- 
habilitation should be metaphorically ascribed to the latter. 
As the believer longs for the “redemption of his body,” so 
that creation in whose environment he is to dwell longs for 


252 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


deliverance from the “bondage of corruption.” In deter- 
mining the scope of xriovs, voluntary creatures, men and 
angels, are excluded by ovx éxovoa, in verse 20; unregenerate 
men are excluded by dzoxapadoxia, in verse 19: the natural 
man does not earnestly expect the ‘manifestation of the 
sons of God;” 
Origen’s explanation of xriows as the whole created universe 


and Christians are excluded by verse 23. 


of mind and matter, presents a combination so heterogeneous 
that it would be impossible to attribute a longing to it in 
one and the same sense. Matter inanimate and animate, 
angels good and evil, and men believing and unbelieving, 
cannot have a common aspiration. Hence, «rious is best re- 
ferred to the irrational creation, and the “earnest expecta- 
tion” is tropical, and not literal. Material nature is meta- 
phorically in sympathy with redeemed man, and shall be 
restored with him. ‘Simplicius est, generatim de universa 
mundi machina, et rebus creatis, etiam brutis et inanimis, 
accipere xtiots, puta astris, elementis, animalibus, terre fruc- 
tibus, et queecunque usibus hominis primitus fuerint a deo 
destinata.” Pareus in loco. Compare vill. 39, where the 
material terms twwua and Bados are associated with xriots. 
aroxdAvyw] the completion of the work of redemption, in the 
perfect sanctification of the believer’s soul, and the glorious 
resurrection of his body. The first occurs at death, and the 
last at the advent of Christ spoken of in verse 18. It is 
“the shining forth” of the righteous (Mat. xi. 43). Com- 
pare 1 John iii..1, 2; Rev. xxii. 4; Dan. xii. 3.  darexdéxerax| 
denotes long-continued waiting. Such personification of 
material nature is common in Scripture. Compare Deut. 
xxxii, 1; Job xii..7,9; Ps. xix. 1 sq.; Ixviil. 8, 16; acyaeee 
12s palpi, 3-10; Isa. i. 2; xiv. 8; lv. 12. 


Ver. 20, with verse 21, assigns the reason, introduced 
by yép, for the “‘expectation” mentioned in verse 19. pa- _ 


OHAPTER VIII. 20. 253 


fal ta a a > / 20 A \ , 
uyw TeV viav ToD Jeod ameKdéyeTat. Th yap para.o- 
TTL 1) KTiols UTeTayn, OVX ExovVGa, GANA OLA TOV UTO- 


rairyrt| is emphatic by position: the term denotes, primari- 
ly, weakness, helplessness, frailty of a physical kind. The 
Septuagint translates aq.(= Abel, Gen. iv. 2) by pararys, 
in Keel. i. 2, 14; ii. 1, site 15 et alia. The reference in such 
passages is, to the perishable, transitory, and unsatisfying 
nature of visible and earthly things. In Ps. iv. 8 (compare 
Acts xiv. 15), paraidrys denotes an idol, which is a nonentity 
(1 Cor. viii. 4; Isa. xli. 24, 29). In the New Testament, the 
word is most commonly employed in a moral and spiritual 
Sense, Hom. i: 21; 1 Cor. xv. 17; Eph. iv. 17; Tit. m1 95 
James i. 26; 1 Pet. i. 18; 2 Pet. ii. 18. In this place, it de- 
notes the tendency to deterioration and dissolution charac- 
teristic of material nature: its equivalent, @Jopa, in verse 21, 
proves this. The material creation, in the midst of which 
the “sons of God” are now placed, has no permanency. 
The instant anything begins to exist here upon earth, it 
begins to die. Such an environment is unsuited to the sin- 
less spirit and the celestial body of the risen believer. The 
“justified man made perfect” (Heb. xii. 23) would be out of 
place, in an outward world of decay and death. wzerdyy| is 
passive, not middle. God is the efficient. The aorist refers 
to a well-known historical fact, viz.: the “curse” mentioned in 
Gen. iii. 14-19. The voluntary disobedience of man brought 
evil upon the involuntary (odx éxotoa) physical creation with 
which he was connected. According to the Biblical repre- 
sentation, physical nature, so far as it is connected with man 
and with sin, differs, in important respects, from what it is 
by creation, and prior to the origin of sin. The human body 
is now mortal; by creation, and before apostasy, it was 
not (Gen. iii, 22-24; Rev. xxii. 14), The natural and ma- 
terial world for the unfallen Adam, was an Eden; for the 


954 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


fallen Adam, a cursed and thistle-bearing earth (Gen. ii. 8, 
9; ui. 17-19, 24). As Scripture is silent upon details, it is 
impossible to define particularly. But it must be observed, 
that the statements in Genesis and in the Epistle to the 
Romans, respecting the curse upon physical nature, relate 
only to the human world, and the sin of man. There is 
nothing in these portions of revelation that necessitates the 
assertion that the curse upon physical nature extends 
throughout universal space. So far as material nature is 
connected with man, and his transgression, it is ‘‘ cursed” 
for his sake. Nature as connected with the fallen angels is 
also cursed. But nature as connected with those myriads of 
holy and blessed spirits who constitute the vast majority of 
God’s rational creatures, is not cursed, but effulgent and 
glorious. ‘The Scriptures everywhere make prominené the 
coherence and correspondence between the spiritual and nat- 
ural world. There must be a heaven, because there are 
heavenly beings: because there is a God, and because there 
are angels and saints. ‘There must be a hell, because there are 
devils. Thus, paradise corresponded with Adam in his state 
of innocence; the cursed ground with fallen man; the prom- 
ised land, as the type of the future paradise, with the typi- 
cal people of God; a darkening and desolation of the land, 
with every moral and religious decline of the people (Deut. 
xxvilil, 15; Isa. xxiv. 17; Joel ii.); an exaltation of nature, 
with every spiritual period of salvation (Deut. xxviii. 8; Ps. 
Ixxil.; Isa. xxxv.; Hosea ii. 21); the darkening of the sun, 
and the earthquake, at the death of Christ; the conflagra- 
tion of the world, in connection with the day of judgment 
(2 Pet. iii. 10; Rev. xvi.); the renovation of the world, in 
connection with the triumph of Christ and his church (Isa. 
xi.3 lx.; Rev. xx.-xxii.).” Lange on Rom. viii. 18-27. ody, 
éxotaa]| “non volens: id est, contra naturalem propensita- 
tem.” Pareus in loco. Nature instinctively recoils from - 


CHAPTER VIII. 2t. 255 


rdéavta, em édrids ™ bte Kal avTH 1) KTioLs EdevSepwd:)- 
cetat amd Ths Sovrelas THs PIopas ets THY EhevJepiay 


weakness, pain, and death: “invita et repugnante natura.” 
Calvin. 62] 1. is here equivalent to “through,” having a 
prevailing reference to the efficient cause. Compare John 
vi. 57. In this case, the preposition combines the meaning 
of “on account of,” with that of “by means of.” Accord- 
ing to this explanation, the unwillingness, or repugnance of 
nature is overcome by God’s direct efficiency. 2. da has its 
usual signification with the accusative: “on account of” 
(Eng. Ver., “by reason of”), According to this explana- 
tion, the “creature” represses its unwillingness and repug- 
nance, and submits to “vanity,” because God inspires it 
with the hope of final deliverance from it. The common use 
of &a with the accusative favors the latter interpretation. 
Winer (p. 399, Note) remarks, that, “ probably, Paul inten- 
tionally avoided saying 8 Tob troragavros, because Adam’s 
sin was the special and direct cause of the patadrys.” ed’ 
rid] wpon (not in, which would require év) hope, as the 
ground. Compare iv. 18. These words may be connected 
with trord€avra (Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Olshausen); or 
with imerayn (Meyer). The latter construction makes the 
hope more prominent, as the motive for overcoming the 
unwillingness and submitting to “vanity.” There are two 
subjections: one to the curse, and the other to the hope that 
the curse will be removed. Hope is not actual fruition (ver. 
24), and calls for patience. 


Ver. 21. dr] is the reading of ABCEL Receptus, Lachm. 
(dre is that of SDF Tisch.): not, “because” (Eng. Ver.), 
but, “that.” The particle denotes what the hope is; as in 
Phil. i. 20. xai] the irrational creation, also, as well as the 
church. iri] the creation itsel/, as well as the soul of man. 


256 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


édevSepwIjoera] this deliverance of material nature from the 
curse connected with Adam’s sin is frequently mentioned in 
Seripture. It is the wadryyevecta of Mat. xix. 28; and the 
dmoxardotacts wavTwv of Acts iii. 21. See Isa. xi. 6-9; xxxv. 
1-10; Heb. xii. 26-28; 2 Pet. iii. 10-13; Rev. xxi., xxii 
Jopas| the genitive of apposition: the bondage which is a 
corruption (Tholuck, Meyer, Philippi). The dovAcia ris pIopas 
is the equivalent of the paroadrys. If freed from the former, 
the creature is not subject to the latter. @Jopa denotes 
either physical corruption, putrefaction, and thus death and 
destruction (1 Cor. xv. 42, 50; 2 Pet. ii. 12); or moral and 
spiritual corruption, and death (Gal. vi. 8; 2 Pet. i. 4; i. 19). 
The first is the meaning here, in accordance with the nature 
of the subject. When external nature is renovated and pre- 
pared for a residence of the redeemed, fragility and vanity, 
decay and death will no longer characterize it. d0&ys] the 
genitive of apposition. The creation is introduced (by par- 
ticipation in it) into that liberty which is the glory of the 
children of God. The restoration of material nature is a 
condition similar, in its own lower sphere, to the restoration 
of man’s spiritual nature, in its higher sphere. St. Paul here 
teaches, not the annihilation of this visible world, but its 
transformation. 


Ver. 22 presents a proof, introduced by yap, that there is 
such a subjection to vanity, and such a bondage, in the exter- 
nal world around man, as has been described in verses 19-21. 
On the general subject of the groaning of the creation, see 
Lange in loco, pp. 286-288. oidapev] is universal: every 
one knows; “we are sure” (ii. 2, Eng. Ver.). It is a fact 
of common observation and belief. Compare Mat. xxii. 16; 
Rom. iii. 19; vii. 14; 1 John iii. 15. The apostle refers to 
that general human conviction that nature is not now in its 
normal and ideal state, which expresses itself in the legends - 


CHAPTER VIII. 22. 257 


THs do—ns TOV TéxvwY Tod Jeod. ™ oldapev yap OTL Taca 
9 KTioWs cvaoTevatesr Kal cuvmdiver dypt Tod viv’ * ov 
respecting a former golden age, and the reign of Saturn 
(Ovid, Fasti, iv. 197; Virgil, Bucolica, iv. 6);.in the specu- 
lations of Plato concerning a pre-existence of the human 
soul, in an environment of beauty and perfection suited to it 
(Phzedo, 73-80); in that minor undertone which character- 
izes the deepest and most sympathetic strains in modern 
music and poetry; and lastly, in the common utterance of 
ordinary untutored human nature, when, weary of earth 
and time, it “would not live always.” zéca 7 xriows| all 
material nature, excluding the church, as verse 23 shows. 
ovorevales Kat ovvwdive| the figure is that of a woman in 
labor: “the pains of birth, not of death” (Calvin). The 
preposition denotes either, that all the parts and elements of 
the immaterial creation suffer conjointly; or, in sympathy 
with the children of God (Calvin). dypue tod viv] from the 
apostasy, to the present moment. This bondage and travail 
of material nature has found a lofty and impressive utter- 
ance in Wordsworth’s Ode on The Intimations of Immor- 
tality. 
‘“* There was a time when meadow, grove, and stream, 
The earth, and every common sight, 
To me did seem 
Apparelled in celestial light, 
The glory and freshness of a dream. 
It is not now as it hath been of yore: 
Turn whereso’er I may, 
By night or day, 
The things which I have seen, I now can see no more. 
Waters on a starry night 
Are beautiful and fair ; 
The sunshine is a glorious birth ; 
But yet I know, where’er I go, 
That there hath passed away a glory from the earth.” 


958 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


/ / > \ \ b) sy \ > X fal , 
povov Oé, GAA Kal avToL THY aTapynY TOD TVEvLATOS 
éyovres, ucts Kal avtol év éavtols otevdfowev viodeciav 


In respect to the teachings of this paragraph, the fol- 
lowing points (says Pareus in loco) are certain. ‘1. The 
creation is made subject to vanity (vill. 20); 2. is to be 
delivered (ver. 21); 3. angels and redeemed men dwell to- 
gether in heaven (Mat. xviii. 10); 4. the redeemed axe in 
glory with Christ, where the throne and house of God are 
(John xvii. 24); 5. the visible heavens and earth are to be 
burned up (2 Pet. iii. 10); 6. new visible heavens and earth 
are to be prepared (2 Pet. iii.13). It is uncertain, but prob- 
able, that all creatures not required in the new heavens and 
earth will be destroyed: viz. animals, and plants, ete. How 
the elements are to be purified is unknown; and so, like- 
wise, is the locality, quantity, and quality of the new heav- 
ens and earth.” 


VeER. 23 contains a second proof of the proposition in 
verse 18, derived from the Jbeliever’s bondage and hope. 
Nature is in bondage, yet with expectation of deliverance; 
and so is even the church of Christ itself. od povov dé] sup- 
ply zéoa % xriows ovotevele. airoi] Paul and his Christian 
readers, and thus inclusive of the church universal. dzapyjv] 
the first sheaves of grain were a pledge of the entire harvest. 
The “first fruits of the Holy Spirit,” alluded to, are the re- 
generated human nature, which has been denominated the 
“inner man,” the “law of the mind,” the “spiritual mind,” 
the “law of the Spirit of life.” The reference is not to any 
superiority of that generation of Christians over all others; 
but to the relation which the divine life in its beginnings 
sustains to its ultimate result in heaven (Eph. i. 14). 
avevparos | The Holy Spirit: partitive genitive (xvi. 5; 
1 Cor. xv. 20; James i. 18). kal airoi] repeated for empha- 


CHAPTER VIII. 24, 25. 259 


GTEKSEXOMEVOL, THY GTONUTPwWOLY TOD THLATOS NuaDV. 
* 7h yap éAmriou eooInwev* édrris 5é Brerropévyn odK EaTLv 


sis. orevafouev| the Apostle has already uttered this groan 
in the exclamation: “QO wretched man, Who shall deliver 
me” (vii. 24); and has analyzed this phase of the believer’s 
experience, in vii. 14-25. This verse proves that the experi- 
ence in chapter viii. is the same in kind with that in chapter 
vil. 14-25. viodeciay] as believers, they already were adopted 
(ver. 15), but their redemption was incomplete. They had 
not attained to sinless perfection; their body was still the 
“vile body ” (Phil. ili. 21); and the outer world around them 
was under the curse. This imperfection and incompleteness 
was not to be removed, until the glorious advent of Christ 
(ver. 18), and the “manifestation of the sons of God” (ver. 
19). dmodvtpwow Tot cwparos| explains viodeciay. It is the 
deliverance of the body from its corruptible and mortal con- 
dition (the consequence of sin), and its transformation into 
the incorruptible and glorious body spoken of in 1 Cor. xy. 
51 sq.; 2 Cor. v. 1-4; Phil. iii. 21. 


Ver. 24 gives a reason, introduced by yap, for “ waiting 
for the redemption of the body” éAmié:] “with hope” (not 
“by hope:” Hng. Ver.): the dative of manner (Bengel, 
Meyer); and not hope put for faith (Chrysost., De Wette). 
Hope is the accompaniment of Christianity. Paganism is 
hopeless. Compare the pagan utterances: ‘Hope is the 
dream of one awakened;” and, ‘“foedus mundum intravi, 
anxius vixi, perturbatus morior.” éoInev| the aorist refers 
to the time of regeneration, and the act of faith. Bderonevy] 
whose object is before the eyes. «xat] denotes the addition 
of hope to actual vision, which would be superfluous. 


Ver. 25. Sv iomovqs] “ patiently:” “6d. when applied to the 


260 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


3) \ a > 
emis. 6 yap Bréreu Tis, Th Kal edmiler ; * ev dé 6 ov 


Br<rropev édarifopev, dv Uropovis aTrexdeyopueda. 
26 ¢ s \ \ as na / an 
QNoavtas 6€ Kal TO TvEedpa cvUVaYTINapPaveTaL TH 
aodevera yuav. TO yap TL mpocevEdpueda Kado Set ovK 
é 
oldapev, GAN avToO TO TYEdMA UTrEpevTUYYdvEL oTEVAaYMOIS 


mental states in which something is done, may be referred to 
the notion of instrumentality. Hence, with its substantive it 
is a circumlocution for an adverb, or adjective” (Winer, 379). 
Sropovis| See comment on ii. 7; v. 3, 4. daexdexopeda] the 
present tense indicates an action going on. 


Ver. 26. St. Paul now passes to the second reason for en- 
during suffering for and with Christ (ver. 18). dcavrws] in- 
troduces the reason. 70 mvetya] the Holy Spirit: compare 
verses 16 and 23. xai] in addition to the expectation previ- 
ously mentioned. ovvavtiAapBdverot] Compare Luke x. 40. 
The Holy Spirit co-operates with the regenerate will, and 
ensures success. doJeveia] that weakness of the soul which 
is felt in the struggle with indwelling sin, and expresses it- 
self in the cry for help (vii. 24), and the groaning (vill. 23). 
mpocevéneda] prayer is the particular, in which the believer 
is helped. The Divine Spirit is a “Spirit of supplications,” 
Zech, xii. 10. KxadJo de¢] the emphasis must be laid upon these 
words. They denote, not the matter of the prayer, but the 
manner of it. The believer knows what (7) he should pray for: 
viz., the forgiveness of sins, etc.; but he does not know how 
to pray for this with the earnestness and perseverance that 
are requisite (kad¢d det), The aorist subjunctive, which is 
best supported by the mss., is equivalent to a subjective 
future. atepevtvyxavet| is followed by tzép yov in CKL Vul- 
gate, Peshito, Copt., Receptus. This is omitted in NABD 
Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. It is implied in the preposition — 
with the verb. The action denoted by dtzepevrvxaver is not 


CHAPTER VIII. 2%. 261 


aGranyros: ” 6 dé épevvdv tas Kapdias oidev Ti TO ppo- 
vnpa Tod mvevpatos, OTL KaTa Jeov evTuyydver wiTép 


performed in heaven (Fritzsche); but in the believer’s heart, 
as the following verse shows (Augustine, Philippi). Christ? 
.in his priestly office, is the intercessor in heaven, for his peo- 
ple (Heb. vii. 25; ix. 24); but the Holy Spirit is dAAov zapa- 
kAyrov (John xiv. 16) who intercedes within their souls. 
There is no distinction in consciousness, between the work- 
ings of the regenerate spirit and the Holy Spirit. Yet, it is 
the creature and not the Creator who supplicates for bless- 
ings. The Holy Ghost is not the subject that is needy and 
asks for spiritual good. At the same time, the communion 
between the Holy Spirit and the believer is so intimate, and 
the human soul is so utterly helpless and dependent, that 
the believer’s prayer under the Spirit’s actuation is here 
denominated the ‘‘ groaning of the Holy Spirit.” This is to 
be understood in the Christian, and not the pantheistic sense. 
See comment on vill. 16. orevaypois| with allusion to oreva- 
Cowev in verse 23. The groans arising from a sense of 
indwelling sin result in groans in prayer for deliverance 
from it. dAadyjros| transcending the power of words to fully 
express them: not unuttered, or dumb (Grotius, Fritzsche), 
but unutterable. There is some expression, but not an ade- 
quate one. Compare 2 Cor, ix. 15; 1 Pet. i. 8. 


Ver. 27. de] is adversative: although the intercession is 
unutterable, yet God knows, etc. 6 épevvav| God is the 
Searcher of hearts (1 Sam. xvi. 7; Prov. xv. 11). ¢povyjpa] 
the inclination, or disposition: ‘ intentio Spiritus” (Pareus). 
See comment on viii. 6, 7. Compare also 1 Cor. ii. 11. ¢po- 
vypa is related to xapdias. God, by searching into the state 
of the believer’s heart, perceives what is the mind of the 


Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit has produced this state 


262 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Cyn 2 28 9 Noire ca > Lal ‘ \ , 
ayiov. oldamev O€ OTL Tols ayaTa@ow Tov SJeov TayTa 


a > 5) ! a \ r an = 
cuvepyet els ayadtov, TOUS KaTa T podecw KANTOLS OVoLW. 


of heart. The effect is the index of the cause. God sees 
his own image in his child. dz] not, ‘‘ because” (Tholuck, 
De Wette, Philippi), for God would know, even if the inter- 
cession were not xara Jeov; but, “that,” as explanatory 
(Grotius, Reiche, Fritzsche, Meyer). In order to render 6ru, 
“‘ because,” oidev must have the meaning of “approve.” Kara 
Jeov| the intercession is in accordance with the divine nature 
and will. St. Paul says xara Jeov, rather than xara adrov, for 
the sake of emphasis. Compare 2 Cor. vii. 9,10. The con- 
nection of thought in verses 26 and 27 is this: The believer, 
through the intercession of the Holy Spirit, has holy desires 
that are so deep and intense that he cannot give full expres- 
sion to them. ‘The prayer is a groaning too deep for words. 
But, though thus unutterable, it is yet perfectly compre- 
hended by God, the Searcher of Hearts. God knows the 
mind of the Holy Ghost, who has prompted this unspeakable 
longing in the believer’s heart, and knows that this mind is 
“according to the will of God.” The prayer, therefore, 
though inadequately expressed, will be heard and answered, 
because, “if we ask anything according to his will, he hear- 
eth us” (1 John v. 14). f 


Ver. 28 mentions the third reason (introduced by 8, 
transitive: ‘‘now”) for enduring suffering for Christ. otda- 
pev| the universal experience of the church, not of the world. 
trois] dative of advantage. dyaraiow] a designation for be- 
lievers, 1 Cor. ii. 9; Eph. vi. 24; James i. 12. aavra] all 
events, afflictions included (v. 35). ovvepyet} is followed by 6 
Jeds, as the subject, in AB Lachm.; but this is rejected by most 
editors, dayaJdv| anarthrous, to denote good generally. tots 
kara] ‘as for those who:” giving the reason of the action in 


CHAPTER VIII. 29, 263 


™ Stu ods Tpoeyvw, Kal Tpowpicey ouppOppous TIS ElKO- 
‘ pos TOD Viod avTOD, Eis TO ElvaL AVTOY TPOTOTOKOY EV TON- 


auwepycit. mpddcow] the divine purpose to save individual 
persons. Rom. ix.11; Eph.i.11; 2 Tim.i.9. The patristic 
exegesis varies here, according as the Greek or the Latin 
ee ictihian) anthropology is adopted by the exegete. 
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyril Jerus., Chrysost., The- 
odoret, Theophylact, explain zpdJeow as the believer's pur- 
pose. Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome as the divine pur- 
pose. «Ayrois] the call is effectual (ver. 30). 


Ver. 29, and 30, explain what is involved in xara zpdSe- 
ow kAyrois. mpoeyvw] is found only in this place, and in xi, 
2; 1 Pet. i. 20; Acts xxvi. 5; 2 Pet. iii. 17. In the third of 
these passages, it signifies a man’s previous acquaintance 
with another man; and in the fourth, his previous knowledge 
of a certain thing. In the other three instances, the word 
denotes an act of God. In 1 Pet. i. 20, it is applied to 
Christ, as having been “ foreordained (zpoeyvwcpevov) before 
the foundation of the world.” In xi. 2, it is said that “‘God 
hath not cast away his people whom he foreknew (zpo¢yve) ;” 
and the context shows that it means the same as elected (xi, 
5). The noun zpoyrwors is found in Acts i, 23; 1 Pet. 1. 2, 
and in both instances denotes the divine purpose, or decree. 
Calvin (in loco) thus defines zpoéyvw-: ‘ Not foreknowledge 
as bare prescience, but the adoption by which God had al- 
ways, from eternity, distinguished his children from the 
reprobated.” In classical usage, zpoyryvooxw would signify 
mere prescience (though in later Greek, yryvacxy, like scisco, 

sometimes signifies to determine, or decree); but in the New 
Testament usage, it is employed in the sense of the Hebrew 
bar to denote love and favor of some kind or other. See the 
explanation of ywooxw, in vil. 15. Says Pareus (in loco), 


264 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


““poéyvw Hebraismo significat, quos ab eterno ex perdita 
massa humana misericorditer in Christo pro suis deus cogno- 
vit, dilexit, elegit: Hebrzeis, enim, »1% cognoscere est, amare, 
curam agere. Etiam maritalem concubitum vocant cogni- 
tionem, quia est intimi amoris conjugalis opus est (Gen. iv. 
1). Sic, de deo dicitur, ‘novit (éyvw) dominus qui sunt sui’ 
(2 Tim. i. 19). Tpdyvwous, ergo, non notitiam prescientia, 
qua omnia ab eterno, bona et mala, deus preescivit; sed no- 
titiam amoris, electionis, cure, qua, quos voluit, gratuito 
electionis favore in Christo, dignatus est.” Accordingly, to 
“foreknow,” in the Hebraistic use, is more than simple pre- 
science, and something more, also, than simply to “fix the 
eye upon,” or to “select.” It is this latter, but with the — 
additional notion of a benignant and kindly feeling toward 
the object. See comment on ix. 13. This latter feeling 
(denominated “love,” in Rom. ix. 13; 1 John iv. 10, 19; 
Eph. v. 25; Gal. ii. 20; Jer. xxxi. 3, et alia), it must be ob- 
served, does not have its ground or cause in any morally 
loveable quality in the object. The object is a sinner, and 
an enemy of God (v. 8, 10; viii. 7). God’s_ electing love 
is his compassion, and not his complacent delight in spiritual 
excellence and holiness. It is prior to all holiness, and all 
excellence, being the cause of it (vill. 29; xi. 2; 1 Pet. i. 2; 
2 Tim. i. 9). The ground of it is in himself alone. His 
election is “according to his good pleasure,” Eph. i. 9; and 
“after the counsel of his own will,” Eph. i. 11. The chosen 
people of God were informed explicitly, and with repeated 
emphasis, that the cause of their election was not their own 
righteousness or merit. ‘‘ Understand, therefore, that the 
Lord thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it 
for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people,” 
Deut. ix. 4-8. It is at this point, that the two generic ex- 
planations (predestinarian, and anti-predestinarian) of zpo- 
eyvw take their start. The Augustinian and Calvinistic — 


CHAPTER VIII. 29. 265 


explanation asserts that the divine act of election does not 
have its motive and reason in any spiritual excellence, either 
present and seen, or future and foreseen, in the elected per- 
son; but solely in the divine self-determination (Mat. xi. 26). 
The Semi-Pelagian and Arminian explanation asserts what 
the other denies. Many Lutheran exegetes, also, are anti- 
predestinarian. Meyer (in loco) remarks: “ Richtig, da der 
Glaube der subjective Heilsgrund ist, Calov, und unsere 
ailteren Dogmatiker: quos’ credituros preevidit vel susceptu- 
ros vocationem.” Concerning the dogmatic Lutheranism of 
the Formula Concordiz, however, Miiller (On Sin, i. 229) 
remarks that the statements in this symbol “respecting the 
nature and depth of human depravity, obviously sanction 
the doctrine of unconditional predestination.” The Armini- 
an interpretation, that God elects those whom he foreknows 
will believe and repent, would require some such clause as 
cuupoppous THs eixdvos to be connected with zpoeyvw. The fact 
that it stands isolated, and without a qualifying adjunct, is 
significant. mpowpicev] to destine, or appoint beforehand. 
There is all the certainty implied in the pagan fate, but re- 
ferred to a wise and intelligent person, Acts iv. 28; Eph. 1. 
5, 11. ovppopdovs| having the same popdy with the glorified 
Redeemer (Phil. iii. 21; 1 John iii. 2), with allusion to the 
amokaAvyw of verse 19, and the dodvtpwow of verse 23. It 
does not include a participation in Christ’s sufferings (Cal- 
vin); because it is the exaltation (ddfav, ver. 18) of the Re- 
deemer that is. referred to.  eixovos] both spiritual (1 Cor. xi. 
7; Coloss. i. 15), and corporeal (1 Cor. xv. 49): the sinless 
spirit, and the celestial body. is 76 etvac] is exegetical of 
cuppoppovs - the end, and not the result. Believers are pre- 
destinated to this perfect conformity with Christ, in order 
that he may be glorified as the head and first-born of the 
redeemed. pordroxov év woAXois] the preposition, with the 


dative, denotes that Christ is one of the number. Compare 
12 


fx % 


266 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Nols aderdois* © ods dé TpowpicEr, TOUTOUS Kal éxddeceD* 
\ A > 4 7 x > ‘ a \ > 4 
Kal ovs €xaddeaeVv, TOUTOUS Kal ediKaimoeyv* ods bé edtKalw- 

Gey, ToUTOUS Kal éddéaceD. ; 
31 5 > aA \ a 3. te \ en Cnta 
T. ovv épotpev mpos taita; «i 0 Seos brép Huan, 


Coloss. i. 18. In Coloss. i. 15 (zpwrdroxos macys kricews), the 
preposition is not employed, because, as verses 16 and 17 
show, Christ is not a part of the creation. He is prior to 
all creation. The preposition in composition governs the 
following genitive: ‘“‘begotten before every creature.” Com- 
pare mpwrds pov, in John 1.30. ddeAdots] sons of God by adop- 
tion, in distinction from 6 povoyeris vios (John i. 18). 


Ver. 30. éxadecev] like xAnrots in ver. 28. Compare 1 Cor. 
1. 9, 24; Eph. i. 18; 2 Tim. i. 9. Itis not the external call 
(Mat. xx. 16; xxii. 14), but the internal and effectual; be- 
cause, the “called,” here, are the “ justified.” There are 
four elements in the effectual call: 1. conviction of con- 
science; 2. illumination of the understanding; 3. renewal of 
the will; 4. faith in Christ. Westminster 8. C.,31.  educaiw- 
aev] See comment on Rom. ii. 13; iii. 4. éddéacev| The future 
glorification of the believer is designated by the aorist, as his 
justification, calling, predestination, and election have been; 
because all of these divine acts are eternal, and therefore 
simultaneous for the divine mind. All are equally certain. 

Verses 31-39 are an inference more immediately from 
verses 28-30. But, as St. Paul has come to the winding up 
of that part of the Epistle which relates to the necessity, 
nature, and effects of gratuitous justification, this inference 
has also a remoter reference to the whole course of reasoning 
upon this subject. Respecting the tone and style, Erasmus 
asks: “Quid unquam Cicero dixit grandiloquentius?” 


Ver. 31. otvy] as an inference from the foregoing, i. e. 
mpos] “in respect to.” attra] the statements immediately, 


CHAPTER VIII. 32-34. 267 


tis Kad nav; ” 6s ye Tod idiou viod ovK épeicaTo, adda 
brép Huayv TavTwv TapédwKev avTov, TAS OvXYL Kai oY 
avTe Ta TavTa nuilv yaplcetar; “ Tis éyKadéoes KaTa 
éxNexTOv Jeod ; eds 0 duxacav: “ Tis 0 KaTAaKpLVar ; 


and more remotely made respecting justification by faith in 
Christ. Jeds | Sc. €oTw. 


Ver. 32 answers the foregoing question. ye] ‘surely.” 
idiov]| see comment on éavrov, in vill. 3. épeioaro| the refer- 
ence is to the judicial suffering which the Son of God 
endured. He was not spared the expiating agony which he 
volunteered to endure. The cup was not taken from his 
lips, until he had drank it, Mat. xxvi. 39. Compare 2 Pet. 
ii. 4. tp] is equivalent to dvri, by reason of its connection 
with zapédwxev, Compare 2 Cor. v. 20, 21; Philemon 13. See 
comment on Rom. v. 6. apédwxey| viz.: as an iAagrypiov. mas 
odxi] “ how shall he not still more:” the argument from the 
greater to the less. zavra] everything requisite to eternal 
life and blessedness. xapicerat] denotes the action of the 
same xapis that delivered up Christ as an oblation for sin. 


VERSES 33 and 34 prove that all things shall be graciously 
given to believers, from the fact: 1. that God the Father 
will interpose no obstacle; 2. that Christ will not. éyxadéce] 
to summon a person before a judicial bar, and bring a charge 
against him. éxAexrav| the «Anroe of verses 28, 31. eds 6 
dixatdv| there are two modes of punctuation. 1. This clause 
is the interrogative answer to tis éyxadeoe, and Xptotos 6 azoda- 
vov . . . av is the same to tis 6 kataxpivwv (Aug., Olsh., De 
Wette, Alford, Griesb., Lachm.); 2. The two above-men- 
tioned clauses are direct answers to the two questions (Luther, 
Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wolfius, Tholuck, Fritzsche, Philippi, 
Lange, Stuart, Hodge, Eng. Ver., Tisch.). kxataxpwéav]| to 
pass a condemning sentence, ii. 1; xiv. 23. “Inaods] is sup- 


968 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Xprotos "Inaods 6 arroSavov, pidrov 5é éyepdets, Os éorw 
év Se&ta Tov Jeod, ds Kal evTvyydver UTEp Hudv. “ Tis Huds 
xopices aro THS wydmns TOU XpiaTtod ; Irrfis 7 oTevoxw- 


XK vi 


pla i) Sumypos 7) Nuywos 7) yumveTns } Kivduvos 7 wdxatpa ; 


ported by NACFL Vulg., Copt., Aith., Lachm. (bracketed), 
Tisch.); is omitted by BD Tregelles. The connection favors 
the formality of the full name of Christ, as the Judge of 
quick and dead. doJavav| as the iAacrypuor, i.e. poaddov 82] 
“nay more.” éyepJeis| the resurrection is the evidence of the 
sufficiency and acceptance of his sacrifice (iv. 25). This fact, 
together with the session upon the right hand of God, and 
the intercession, prove Christ’s power to save his people from 
condemnation. s| is the reading of SABC Peshito, Atth., 
Copt., Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles; «ai is added by DEL Vulg., 
Recept. év de&a| denotes universal dominion with the Father, 
Ps. cx. 1; Eph. i. 20; Heb. i. 3; Rev. iii. 21. évrvyxaver] the 
intercession whereby he presents the merits of his work in 
amoJavwv, Heb. vii. 25; ix. 24; 1 John ii. 2. 


Ver. 35. ris} not 7/(as would be more natural), because of 
the preceding tis. xwpice] looks back to the radjpara of ver. 
18. The tribulation and sorrow of this life lead the believer 
to think that he is forsaken of his Redeemer, and particularly 
that he is not beloved by him. Xpucrod] is subjective {most 
commentators). Verse 37 proves this to be the correct view. 
It is Christ’s perfect and almighty love toward the believer, 
and not the believer’s imperfect and feeble love toward 
Christ, that supports under the distress and persecution of 
the present time. If this were lost, all is lost; even the be- 
liever’s own love for Christ. dwypos, etc. | the kinds of suffer- 
ing mentioned are, naturally, such as characterized the early 
Church, and the martyr-age. But if the Redeemer’s love is 
unchanging in the extraordinary circumstances of his people, 


CHAPTER VIII. 36-38, 269 


* Kadas yéypaTtat OTe evexev cod Javatodweda Sdnv tiv 
nuepav, EMoylaInwev ws TpdBata ahayfs. “ adr év Tov- 
TOWNS TaoW UTEpViKa@peV Sia TOD ayaTHGaVTOS jpuads. *° Té- 


\ oe A BA / ” yA 
Mevopal yap OTL ovTe JavaTtos ovTE Sw, ovTE ayyeNoL 


it certainly will be in the ordinary. If he walks with his 
disciples on the sea, he surely will on the land. 


Ver. 36. xaJos] such trials as have been mentioned are to 
be expected: the Old Testament saints suffered in the same 
manner, ‘yéypamrat| in Ps. xliv. 22, according to the Septu- 
agint version. o7t| is recitative, marking the quotation. 
oAnv]| not “daily,” but at any time in the day: “all the day 
long” (Eng. Ver.). od¢ayyjs| not the sacrificial slaughter 
(Theophylact), but that of the market. The Roman regarded 
the Christian as a cheap and common victim. 


Ver. 37. dAd’] “no, we shall not be separated, but,” ete. 
tovtois| those mentioned in verses 35, 36. dyamycavtos| 1. 
God the Father (Chrys., Grotius, Bengel, Olsh.); 2. Christ 
(Riickert, De Wette, Philippi, Tholuck, Meyer). The latter 
is preferable, because of verse 35. Compare Gal. ii. 20; 
Phil. iv. 13. Both persons are combined in verse 39. 


Ver. 38. St. Paul strengthens the affirmation of verse 37, 
by the expression of his own personal conviction. Javaros 
and wy] are general: covering all the circumstances in which 
a man can be placed. He must either live, or die. Verse 36 
naturally leads to the mention of death, first. The reverse 
order is found in 1 Cor. iii. 22. dyyedAor] angels generally, 
good and bad. Compare Gal. i. 8. dpxa] the arrangement of 
words in the text is supported by SNABCDEF Copt., 2th., 
Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., Meyer, Alford, Tregelles. The Re- 
ceptus, L Peshito, place ovre duvdmes before ovre éveorara. 
In the first arrangement, dpxai is best referred to dyyeAo, de- 


270 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


BA > , ” ) lal ” UA v Sf 
OUTE APXAl, OUVTE EVETTWTA OUTE MéXXNOVTA, OUTE duvapers 
39 A A LY / LA , ogy, / 

ovte invwpa ovTe Bddos ovTE Tis KTiots ETépa duVHCE- 
Tat Has yoploat aro Ths ayarns Tod Jeod ths ev Xpicte 
>] rn lal 4 e. lel 
Incotd 7@ Kupio nuav. 


noting angelic hierarchies, good and evil; and dvvapes to 
earthly principalities, kings and governments. In the last 
arrangement, both words are best referred to dyyeAou: dpyat 
designating good angels, and dvvépes, evil. Compare Eph. 
i. 21; Coloss, i. 15. éveordra|- present, and immediately im- 
pending events. jeAAovra] events in the nearer or remoter 
future. Not the glorious and joyful events of the future 
(verses 18, 19) are intended; but such tribulations as are 
specified in verse 35. 


VER. 39. ovre tWopya ovre Bados| not heaven and hell (Theo- 
doret, Bengel); or heaven and earth (Theophylact, Fritzsche) ; 
but space generally (Meyer). érépa] implies that all the ob- 
jects that have been enumerated are created things. dyads 
Jeot] is the same as dydry Xpiorod (ver. 35). Compare vy. 8. 
év XpiorG] Christ is both the medium, and the mediator of 
God’s love toward the believer. 


CHAPTER IX. 
§ 4. The application of gratuitous justification. Rom. ix.-xi. 


Meyer, Philippi, and others, regard chapters ix.—xi. as 
only an appendix to the preceding eight; being influenced 
by an anti-predestinarian bias. But these chapters unques- 
tionably enunciate doctrines that constitute an integral part 
of the Christian system as conceived and stated by St. Paul; 
and therefore constitute the fourth and last division in the 
dogmatic part of the Epistle, in which the writer considers 
the mode in which the righteousness of God actually becomes 
the personal possession of the individual. The previous dis- 
cussion has shown that the proximate and instrumental cause 
is faith, But the complete comprehension of the subject 
requires an ultimate and efficient cause. The question arises 
whether faith is a self-originated act of the human will, or 
whether it is wrought in the will by God. The apostle 
affirms the latter, and teaches that the ultimate reason why 
the individual believes, is that God elects him to faith, and 
produces it within him. The doctrine of redemption is thus 
made to rest upon that of the divine sovereignty in the be- 
stowment of regenerating grace. Were faith in Christ’s work 
to be determined solely and ultimately by the human will, 
the result of that work would be a failure; since man, unin- 
fluenced by grace, uniformly rejects it. St. Paul goes even 
further than this, and asserts that owing to the bondage of 
. the will, it must be a failure, viii. 7, 23; ix. 16. 

The apostle has already touched upon the doctrine of elec- 
tion in viii. 28-33. He now enters upon the full examination 


272 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS, 


‘"AdjSevav Neyo ev Xpict@, od wevdopuat, cvvpaptv- 
povons por THs TUvELOnTEMS frou ev TrVEvpaTL dyin, * OTL 


of it, together with the correlated doctrine of reprobation, 
by first lamenting that a part of the Jews had not obtained 
the benefits of gratuitous justification (ix. 1-5). He then 
justifies God, in regard to this fact, by proving, both from 
Scripture and from reason, that God is under no obligation 
to work faith in the resisting and disbelieving man, and that 
the bestowment of grace is optional. Election and reproba- 
tion are acts of sovereignty, in-which God is perfectly free 
(ix. 6-29). St. Paul then proves, in respect to the doctrine of 
reprobation, that the Jews, by their strenuous rejection of 
the righteousness of God and their zealous pursuit of self- 
righteousness, are the guilty cause of their own perdition. 
God does not produce their unbelief and self-righteousness, 
but merely leaves them in it. He does not stimulate them 
to pursue after justification by the works of the law, but only 
permits them to do as they please (ix. 30-x. 21). After this 
statement and defence of the doctrine of election and repro- 
bation, St. Paul assigns as one reason for the preterition of 
a portion of the Jews, that the gospel might pass to the 
Gentiles, and then prophetically announces the final election 
of the body of the Jewish people, in connection with the final 
triumph of Christianity in the world (xi. 1-36). He thus closes 
the discussion of a topic in itself depressing, with the consol- 
atory prediction of a hopeful future for the Jew. Says Cole- 
ridge (Table Talk, Aug. 14, 1833), “‘ When I read the ninth, 
tenth, and eleventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans to 
that fine old man, Mr. , at Highgate, he shed tears. Any 
Jew of sensibility must be deeply impressed by them.” 





Ver. 1. é&v Xpiord] in his communion with Christ: the 
sphere and element in which he says what follows, This 


CHAPTER IX. 2 3. OTe 


ve 7 UA \ 2 / ’ , A y 2 
van pot oti pmeyarn Kal adiddesTrTos ddvvN TH Kapdia 
») , > ra iy \ b] \ > \ a 

foov: * nvyounv yap avddena eivat adTos éy@ amo TOD 


would be, for St. Paul, the highest conceivable evidence of 
veracity and sincerity. He could not possibly speak a lie 
“in Christ.” od Wevdouat|] the negative form after the posi- 
tive renders the affirmation more solemn and impressive. 
Compare Isa. xxxvili. 1; Johni. 20; 1 Tim. it. 7%. cuvpaprv- 
povoys| the participle assigns a reason: “since it witnesses.” 
Compare ii. 15; vill. 16. év mvevpart] belongs with ovvpaprv- 
povons.: St. Paul’s conscience is under the actuation of the 


Holy Spirit. 


VeR. 2. Avry] the cause of this grief: viz., the fact that 
the Jews are not enjoying the benefits of that method of 
justification which has been described, the apostle does not 
mention directly, but leaves it to be inferred from what fol- 
lows. “His great grief relates not only to the fall of his 
people, which had already occurred, but to the apostle’s 
tragical position toward his brethren according to the flesh, 
and to his trying prophetic call now to disclose publicly the 
whole reprobating judgment pronounced on Israel, with its 
incalculably sad consequences.” Lange in loco. 


VeER. 3. nvxouynv] the rendering of the English Version is 
accurate: “I could wish.” ‘Imperfects of this kind imply 
a wish to do a thing, or that a thing should be done, if it 
were possible (si posset), or allowable (si liceret).” Fritzsche 
in loco. Winer (p. 283) remarks that yixopuyy, in this pas- 
sage, is like €GovAduyv in Acts xxv. 22, which “is to be ex- 
plained by ‘I could wish.’ There is expressed here, not a 
desire which has been active at some former time merely 
(under different circumstances), volebam, but a wish still felt 
by the speaker. This, however, is not stated directly, in 
the present er (volo); for this can be done only when 

1 


1 


O74 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


the performance is viewed as dependent solely on the will of 
the speaker; nor by means of €SovAcunv with dv, for this 
would imply the qualification, ‘but I will not;’ nor yet by 
the much weaker PovAoiuyy av, velim, ‘1 should wish ;’ but 
definitely: ‘I was wishing,’ or ‘I wished,’ that is, if it were 
proper, if it were permissible.” So, also, Ellicott on «dor, 
in Galatians iv. 20: ‘The imperfect here must be referred 
to a suppressed conditional clause: vellem, sc. si possem, si 
liceret; but must be distinguished from the imperfect with 
év, which involves the qualification, ‘but I will not,’ which is 
not here intended.” Similarly Meyer (in loco): “He would 
wish, if the wish could be realized for the benefit of the Israel- 
ites.” This is also the view of Chrys., Photius, Theophylact, 
Luther, Pareus, Calvin, Beza, Lightfoot, Witsius, Wolfius, 
Whitby, Stuart, Hodge. ° The Vulgate and Luther explain 
by the simple imperfect : “I wished,” or, “was wishing” 
(optabam). The meaning in this case would be, either, 
1. When a Jew, I wished to keep the Jews from Christ ; or, 
2. When a Christian, I actually wished to be accursed. dva- 
Jeua] is the Septuagint rendering of nn, a votive offering 
dedicated to God without ransom (Ley. xxvii. 28, 29). And 
since such offerings were mostly piacular, relating to sin and 
guilt, the non, generally, was an offering devoted to death 
and destruction, as. the expression of the divine displeasure 
(Zech. xiv. 11). In this way, dvaJeuwa denotes an object given 
up to the divine wrath: an accursed thing. Compare 1 Cor. 
xvi. 22. This explanation is accepted by the great majority 
of commentators. Another explanation makes dvaJena to 
mean excommunication (‘from Christ,” signifies, from his 
church) (Grotius, Hammond, and some Lutheran exegetes). 
Wieseler, in his thorough exegesis of Gal. i. 8, 9, has shown 
the untenableness of this view. Still another view explains 
dviteua as denoting an ignominious death, of one apparently 


separated from Christ (Jerome, Locke, Limborch, Doddridge). 


CHAPTER IX. 3. O75 


Adopting the first-mentioned explanation of dvdJeua, the 
meaning of St. Paul in this passage is, that if it were pos- 
‘sible, and permitted by God, and would secure the eternal 
salvation of his “brethren and kinsmen according to the 
flesh,” he would be willing to be made a vicarious sacrifice 
for them, like the typical lamb of the old economy, and the 
Lamb of God, of thenew. In this utterance of self-sacrificing 
love for his kinsmen, the apostle evinces that the same mind 
is in him that was also in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. ii. 16; Phil. ii. 
5-8). The Redeemer was willing, and in his case it was 
possible and permissible, to endure, objectively, the pains 
and penalty of sin without the subjective consciousness of 
sin; to come under the reatus peccati, without the culpa 
peccati, St. Paul affirms solemnly, and as a man in Christ, 
that if it were possible and permissible, and the blessing 
which he desires for his people could come from it, he would 
do the same thing. Thinking merely of pain as positively 
inflicted ab extra, and as distinct from the sense of personal 
culpability and shame, he would endure any degree and 
amount of pain positively inflicted, if thereby his brethren 
could be brought to believe in Christ. He would undergo 
the pangs of perdition, if they could be separated from its 
personal sinfulness. ‘Anathema fieri cupit non a Christi 
charitate et amicitia, sed tantum a Christi felicitate et fructu 
amicitie. Optat non fieri Christi hostis, sed non frui Christi 
corspectu et beatitudine seterna ut hec fratribus contingat. 
Vult perire non ut Christi inimicus, sed ut fratrum servator. 
Sicut et Christus pro nobis factus pn, execratio a deo, non 
ut hostis dei, sed ut noster redemptor.” Pareus in loco. 
This same spirit is exhibited by Moses, toward his breth- 
ren, in Hx. xxxii. 32. airds éyo| in distinction from the mass 
of his kinsmen, who are actually, and not vicariously, an 
avadeua, amd Xpiotod| separate, and away from Christ. This 
clause must be interpreted in harmony with the explanation 


276 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


of dvdJena, One who is devoted to death, or “ accursed,” 
because of his own personal sin, is separated from God, ab- 
solutely, and in every sense. He has no filial relation to 
God, while he is suffering. Such was the status of the un- 
believing Jews; and such is the status of the lost. But one 
who is devoted to death for another’s sin, or vicariously 
“accursed,” is separate from God only relatively, and par- 
tially. He may still be in blessed relations with God. Our 
Lord was not absolutely separated, and eternally cast away 
from God, as are Satan and his angels. His desertion by 
the Father was only temporary; and though while it lasted 
it was a total eclipse of the Father’s face, and an hour of in- 
conceivable and infinite agony, yet it was not accompanied, 
as in the instance of the damned, with the consciousness of 
personal worthlessness and guilt, and the sense of God’s 
abhorrence and hatred of workers of iniquity (Ps. v. 5). 
Even in the hour when Christ was submitting to the stroke 
of justice from his Father’s hand (Zech. xiii. 7), in accord- 
ance with the covenant and understanding between the two 
divine persons, he knew that he was still and ever the 
Father’s “dear son,” ‘‘ well-beloved,” and “ only-begotten.” 
When, therefore, St. Paul “could wish” that he were “ac- 
cursed from Christ,” he does not mean that he would be 
willing, if thereby he could save others from sin and hell, to 
live himself forever in sin and hell, in rebellion against God. 
His willingness is like that of his Redeemer: a willingness 
to endure suffering, but not to commit sin, or to be person- 
ally sinful. Calvin’s explanation (in loco) is unguarded, 
from overlooking the element of vicariowsness, in the 
“curse” which St. Paul was willing to submit to. “The 
clause ‘from Christ’ signifies a separation. And what is it 
to be separated from Christ, but to be excluded from the 
hope of salvation ? It was, then, a proof of the most ardent 
love, that Paul hesitated not to wish for himself that con- 


CHAPTER IX. 4,5. — OV7 


Xpictod vrép TaV adeAhav pov, TOV CUYyYEv@V jou KaTa 
, 4 ivf f ’ ’ a we id € f \ Ie. 
odpKa, * oitwés eiow “Iopandeita, av 1 viodecia Kal 4 
la \ ec fal \ e 4 \ ig / \ 
d0fa Kal ai diadicar Kal 7) vowoderia Kal 7) NaTpeia Kal 
Ce ae / 5 ee e , APs) ® c Wa \ \ 
ai émayyedlat,° wv ot matépes, Kal €€ av 0 Xpictos TO 


demnation which he saw impending over the Jews, in order 
to deliver them.” izép| takes its signification from dvadeua, 
If that has been correctly interpreted, trép, here, includes 
both the idea of substitution and advantage. See comment 
on.v..6. 


Ver. 4. oirwés] denotes the class. “Iopaydetrar] the name 
of honor: Gen. xxxii. 28; John i. 48; Phil. 11. 5.  viodecia] 
the national and theocratic sonship (Ex. iv. 22; Deut. xiv. 
1), not the spiritual and Christian (Ezek. xxxvi. 26; Rom. 
vil. 14); the latter implies personal faith, and individual 
reconciliation through the Messiah. Compare ix. 6-8.  xal] 
is repeated five times, for the sake of deep emphasis. d0€a | 
a general term for the Old Testament theophanies, particu- 
larly those connected with the tabernacle and temple. Com- 
pare Ex. xxiv. 16; xl. 34; 1 Kings viii. 10; Ezek.i. 28. d&a- 
Jjxat| those with Abraham, and the succeeding patriarchs, 
Gal. ii. 16, 17; Eph. ii. 12. BDEFG Vulg., Ath., Lachm. 
read 7 diadyxy. vowod_ecia] the Sinaitic legislation, moral 
and ceremonial. Aartpeia] the Jewish tabernacle and tem- 
ple worship. ézayyeAta.] the Messianic promises and pro- 
phecies. 


Ver. 5. marépes] Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Ex. iii. 13, 
15; iv. 5; Acts iii. 13; vii. 32. 76 Kara odpxa] is in apposi- 
tion with Xpicrds, which is the subject of éyévero understood, 
The total human nature of Christ is designated by the clause. 
See comment oni. 3. 6 dv ézi, etc.] “The common explana- 
tion, according to which this clause is referred to Christ is, 


278 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


\ / €c By ? \ / X > X 3 \ 
KaTa oapKa, 0 av emit mavt@v eos evoYNTOS Es TOUS 
lol 1A 
ai@vas, apn. 


in grammatical respects, the most natural, since 6 v = 6s 
éorw (John i. 18; xii. 17; 2 Cor. xi. 31), and 70 xara cdpka 
naturally suggests an antithetic clause in which a higher 
characteristic of Christ is mentioned” (De Wette, in loco). 
De Wette, however, hesitatingly suggests that the grammar 
should be overruled, “‘ because such a high title is nowhere 
else given to Christ, except, perhaps, Tit. 1.3; ii. 13.” Meyer 
(in loco) asserts that Christ is never described in the New 
cee as | God over all. This isan error. See Eph. i. 

—22; Phil. ii. 10; Rev. xv. 3; xix. 16. Meyer concedes 
on the eee of Paul is the same as that of John. 
But, John i. 1, 3, attributes identity of essence and creative 
power to the Logos, and this constitutes him S«ds éxi wavrov. 
The filial subordination of the Son of God, in the trinitarian 
relations, is compatible with his supremacy and dominion 
over the created universe. The sphere of the divine essence, 
and that of finite substance created ex nihilo, are totally di- 
verse. Supremacy in reference to the latter does not imply 
supremacy in reference to the former. The clause is referred 
to Christ, by Irenzeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cypri- 
an, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Basil, Theodore 
Mops., Augustine, Jerome, Theodoret, Ambrose, Hilary, 
Luther, Erasmus (Paraphr.), Calvin, Beza, Michaelis, Wolf, 
Flatt, Klee, Usteri, Olshausen, Tholuck, Ruckert, Philippi, 
Hahn, Thomasius, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Stuart, Hodge, Alford, 
Wordsworth. Erasmus, in his Annotations, proposed a colon 
after odpxa, and thereby the conversion of the clause into a 
doxology. The doctrine of the divinity of Christ, he re- 
marks, would not be trenched upon by this arrangement, 
since the Logos is included in the Godhead. He found 
this punctuation in two manuscripts of the eleventh and 


CHAPTER IX. 6, 279 


twelfth centuries. The uncials SAB have no punctuation; 
CL 5. 47, punctuate after odpxa ; 71, after mavrwv ; 17, after 
eos (Tisch., in loco). The punctuation suggested by Erasmus 
did not go into the Receptus; but Wetstein, Semler, Lach- 
mann, Fritzsche, Baur, Meyer, and Tischendorf have adopted 
it. Considering the great preponderance of authority, as 
well as of grammar and context, against it, its adoption evi- 
dently rests upon subjective considerations. The reasons 
for the historical interpretation are the following: 1. The 
antithesis to kara oapxa requires it; an antithesis previously 
employed in the Epistle (i. 3, 4). 2. It is supported by sim- 
ilar constructions in Paul’s writings: Rom. i. 25; 3 Cor. xi. 
31; Gal. i. 5. 3. If it were a doxology to God, and not a 
predicate of Christ the antecedent, it would, at best, be very 
harsh and abrupt, and would certainly require the introduc- 
tory particle 82; see 1 Tim. 1.17. 4. If it were a simple un- 
related doxology, évAoyntos would precede Jeds ; see Mat. xxi. 
9; Luke i. 68; 2 Cor.i.3; Eph.i. 3; 1 Pet.i. 3, and the Old 
Testament mim yana. 5. It is supported by the actual doxol- 
ogies to Christ. Compare Heb. xiii. 21; 2 Tim. iv. 18; 1 Pet. 
iv. 11; 2 Pet. ili. 18; and by such texts as John i. 1; Phil. i. 
10; Tit.i1.3; 11.138; Rev. xv. 3; xix.16. Meyer (in loco) at- 
tempts to escape the force of the texts in Hebrews, 2 Timo- 
thy, and 2.Peter, by the assertion that these are post-apostolic 
writings. Hrasmus also suggested a second punctuation, 
which he did not favor, found in a codex of the eleventh or 
twelfth century, namely, a period after émi ravrwv, whereby 
Christ would be described as over all (either men or Jews); 
the remainder of the clause being regarded as a doxology to 
God. This is adopted by Locke, Clarke, Wetstein, Baum- 
garten-Crusius. dvtwv] is neuter. 


Ver. 6 is the beginning of the theodicy, in reference to 
the fact that the Jews have not obtained the benefits of gra- 


280 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


° ovy olov dé Ste exrémTwKer 0 NOYos TOD Jeod. od yap 
mavtes of €& Icpanr, ovtor ‘Iopannd* * ovd ote eiaiv o7rép- 
pa ’ABpaau, wavres ztéxva, GAN 'Ev ‘Ioaan khydjoetat 


tuitous justification. ovdx otov dé dru] = od Totov 8é Aéyw, otov 
ére (Beza, Fritzsche, Winer, Buttmann, Meyer). éxmérraxev] 
to “fall out its place,” or utterly fail. Adyos] the promise of 
salvation through the Messiah, given to Abraham and his 
seed. The apostle’s expression of grief concerning the Jew- 
ish nation (ver. 2), might lead to the inference that God’s 
covenant with their fathers was a ¢ota/ failure. This is not 
so, he says. é& "Iopaz\] lineal descendants of Jacob. “IopayA] 
spiritual descendants of Jacob (ii. 28, 29; Gal. ili. 7). “Not 
the natural but the spiritual seed of Abraham is destined to 
inherit the promise ” (Philippi, on Rom. xi.). “The promise 
was given to Abraham and his seed in such a manner, that 
the inheritance did not belong to every individual one of 
his seed without distinction; it hence follows, that the de- 
fection of some does not prove that the covenant does not 
remain firm and valid” (Calvin, in loco). 


Ver. 7 continues the explanation. cistv] sc. ot e€ “Iopand. 
téxva| sc.’ABpadu. GaAd’] is not followed by yéypatra, because 
the dictum in Gen. xxi. 12 is well known. Compare Gal. iii. 
11. “Icadx] the individual, as a type, as opposed to Ishmael 
the individual, as a type. St. Paul does not mean that all of 
the lineal descendants of Isaac, without exception, are spiri- 
tually elected, and that all of the lineal descendants of Ish- 
mael, without exception, are spiritually rejected. Isaac rep- 
resents the spiritually elect, and Ishmael the spiritually 
reprobate. KAnJycerai] 1. to be chosen, Isa. xlviii. 12; xlix. 
1 (Calvin, and most interpreters); 2. to be named (in accord- 
ance with xp in Gen. xxi. 12) (Meyer); 3. to be, or to be 
created (Tholuck). The first agrees best with viii. 28, 30, 33, 


CHAPTER IX. 8. 281 


gou omépwa: * TouTéctw, ov TA TéKVAa THS TapKos TavTa 
Tékva TOU Jeod, AANA TA TéxVA THS eTrayyerias NoyleTaL 


and the succeeding context in this chapter. “In order that 
the children of the promise may be the seed of Abraham, 
they are called in Isaac, that is, are gathered together in 
Christ by the call of grace.” Augustine, City of God, xvi. 32. 


Ver. 8 explains verse 7. Compare Gal. iv. 22-31. The 
promise of everlasting blessedness through the Messiah had 
reference to a spiritual and not to a carnal descent from 
Abraham. “For the promise, that he should be the heir of 
the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the 
law, but through the righteousness of faith” (Rom. iv. 13). 
“They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abra- 
ham” (Gal. iii. 7). Christ (Mat. viii. 12) asserts that some of 
“the children of the kingdom” by lineal descent, shall ‘‘ be 
cast out into outer darkness.” oapxds| carnal descent. Jeod] 
spiritual descent. érayyeA/as| the genitive of cause: they 
who are the spiritual offspring and product of the promise 
made to Abraham, with allusion to Isaac’s supernatural birth. 
Compare John i. 13; Gal. ili. 29; iv. 28. An impenitent 
and unbelieving Jew (the “Jew outwardly,” ii. 28) was not 
a child of the promise. Ishmael stands for this class. Aoyi- 
erat] by God, i. e. oépya] spiritual seed, i. e. “Two 
things,” says Calvin (in loco), “‘are to be considered, in ref- 
erence to the selection by God of the posterity of Abraham, 
as a peculiar people. The first is, that the promise of bless- 
ing through the Messiah has a relation to all who can trace 
their natural descent from him. It is offered to all, without 
exception, and for this reason they are all denominated the 
heirs of the covenant made with Abraham, and the chil- 
dren of promise. It was God’s will that his covenant with 
Abraham should be sealed, by the rite of circumcision, with 


282 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


eis omrépua. ° émayyedias yap 0 Adyos ovTos, Kata Tov 


\ a 3 , Sy oy, a , er 10 > 
KALpOV TOUTOV eXevToOUaL KQt €OTAL TT) Sapp ulos. ou 


Ishmael and Esau, as well as with Isaac and Jacob; which 
shows that the former were not wholly excluded from him. 
Accordingly, all the lineal descendants of Abraham are de- 
nominated by St. Peter (Acts iii. 25) the children of the 
covenant, though they were unbelieving; and St. Paul, in 
this chapter (verse 4) says of unbelieving Jews : ‘whose are 
the covenants.’ ‘The second point to be considered is, that 
this covenant, though thus offered, was rejected by great 
numbers of the lineal descendants of Abraham. Such Jews, 
though they are ‘of Israel,’ they are not ‘Israel;’ though 
they are the ‘seed of Abraham,’ they are not the ‘ children 
of the promise.” When, therefore, the whole Jewish people 
are indiscriminately denominated the heritage and peculiar 
people of God, it is meant that they have been selected 
from other nations, the offer of salvation through the Mes- 
siah has been made to them, and confirmed by the symbol 
of circumcision. But, inasmuch as many reject this out- 
ward adoption, and thus enjoy none of its benefits, there 
arises another difference with regard to the fulfilment of the 
promise. The general and national election of the people 
of Israel not resulting in faith and salvation, is no hinder- 
ance that God should not choose from among them those 
whom he pleases to make the subjects of his special grace. 
This is a second election, which is confined to a part, only, 
of the nation.” 


Ver. 9. A proof, from the history of Abraham, that only 
the spiritual children are the children intended in the prom- 
ise to him. ézayyeAias] is emphatic: “a word of promise, is 
the following word.” The citation is condensed freely from 
the Septuagint version of Gen. xviii. 10, 14. xara rov xazpov] 


CHAPTER IX. 10. 283 


sovov &é, dXda Kal “PeBéxxa && évds Koitrny éxovaa, Icaax 
TOU TATPOS HL@v * 


1. When this time returns next year: fm yD: according to 
the living time; tempore vivente, vel redeunte (Gesenius, 
Meyer, Tholuck, Hodge); 2. ‘according to the time of life” 
(Eng. Ver.): the time of child-bearing, between conception 
and birth. Compare Gen. xvii. 21; xxi. 2; 2 Kings iv. 16, 
1%. The usual course of nature would be followed, though 
the conception would be miraculous. The child would be 
nourished the usual time in the womb (Hammond). Ishmael 
was already born when God made this promise that Sarah 
should have a son. The blessing of the Abrahamic cove- 
nant, therefore, did not refer to those of whom Ishmael was 
the type. As Ishmael, who was born according to the com- 
mon course of nature, and without a special divine promise, 
was not that “seed of Abraham” to which God had bound 
himself by the promise to Abraham, but Isaac, who was born 
supernaturally, and according to a special promise, was this 
seed, so not all. Jews who are merely lineal descendants of 
Abraham are the “seed” intended in the original covenant 
between God and Abraham, but only such Jews (together 
with such Gentiles) as have the faith of Abraham, are this 
seed. 


Ver. 10. A second, and even more striking proof of the 
doctrine of election, taken from the history of Jacob. Ish- 
mael was illegitimate; but Esau and Jacob were twins, and 
legitimate children. Yet God rejects the former and elder, 
and elects the latter and younger. od povoy dé] 1. supply 
tovro (Hrasmus, De Wette, Tholuck); 2. supply Sdppa Adyov 
erayyeXias elxev, or, erayyeApevyn nv (Fritzsche, Meyer). “PeBéx- 
Ka] sc. Adyov éraryyeNias elxev, or, erayyeApevyn Hv. €évos| denotes 
an individual, simply, who is then named. xoirny] sexual 


284 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


" unto yap yevvntévtov pwndé mpakdvTav Tt ayadov 4 
avrov, iva ) Kat’ éexdoynv mpodecis Tod Jeod pévy, odK €& 


intercourse. Compare xili.13. It is Septuagint usage. Clas- 
sical writers employ évvy and Aé€xos. The fact is mentioned to 
show that carnal descent does not determine spiritual rela- 
tionships. av] St. Paul is now speaking to Jews. 


Ver. 11. pytw| the subjective negative is employed, and 
not ovmw, because the fact mentioned is regarded as bearing 
upon the divine decision in the case. yevvydevtwv] the birth 
is the consequence of the xotrnv. This word does not signify 
creation ex nihilo. The children, though not yet born, were 
nevertheless in existence. :The divine decision did not relate 
to nonentities; as in the supralapsarian theory. These two 
human individuals had both a physical and a psychical exist- 
ence in the mother’s womb. Compare Heb. vii. 10; Ps. exxxix. 
13-16; Job x. 10. As descendants, also, of Adam, they also 
existed in him. zpagdévrwv] actual individual transgression is 
meant. St. Paul does not exclude sin altogether, so as to in. 
ply innocence; because one of these individuals was elected to ~ 
salvation, and salvation presupposes sin and condemnation. 
There was original sin, though no actual transgression. Hsau 
and Jacob are included in the zavres which is the subject of 
npaptov, inv. 12. ‘When the apostle says that neither of 
the children had then done any good or evil, what he took 
for granted must be added,—that they were both the chil- 
dren of Adam, by nature sinful, and endued with no par- 
ticle of righteousness” (Calvin, in loco). ‘* As regards ori- 
ginal sin, both children were alike, and as regards actual sin, 
neither had any.” Augustine’s City of God, xvi. 5. Kar’ éxdo- 
ynv | is modal, here: the electing purpose: “propositum dei ad 
electionem spectans” (Wolfius, in loco). The divine purpose 
to bestow regenerating grace does not include all men indis- 


CHAPTER IX. 12. 285 


A lal c 
épyav adn’ &x Tod Kadodvtos, * éppéIn avtH oreo pelSov 
Sovrevoet TO EXTOL, 


criminately, but makes a selection from among them. peévy] 
denotes the fixedness and immutability of the divine purpose. 
Compare John xii. 34; 2 Cor. ix. 9. ov« é& épywy . . . . Kadodv- 
tos| belongs with eévy, as an explanatory clause. Compare 
Rom. iii. 20; iv. 2. The divine purpose in electing one, and 
rejecting another, is not founded upon the conduct of man, 
but upon the divine self-determination. There is an internal 
reason for this self-determination, that is not known to man; 
so that the purpose of election, or of rejection, as the case 
may be, is not mere caprice, or a decision without any reason 
whatever. But there is no reason external to God, for this 
purpose, derived from human character and conduct. St. 
Paul expressly asserts that Jacob was not elected for any- 
thing that he had done, good or evil; and that Esau was not 
rejected for anything that he had done, good or evil. Jacob, 
in Rebecea’s womb, had done nothing that was a reason why 
he should be selected, rather than Esau, to be the theocratic 

“head of the chosen people; and Esau had done nothing that 
was a reason why he should be rejected rather tlfan Jacob. 
Jacob and Esau, like Isaac and Ishmael, are types of the 
two classes that have been spoken of: viz.: the “ children of 
the promise,” and the “children of the flesh” (ver. 8). The 
theocratic election of Isaac and Jacob illustrates the spiritual 
election of individuals; and the theocratic reprobation of 
Ishmael and Esau illustrates the spiritual reprobation of in- 
dividuals. xadotvros|] the electing purpose depends wholly 
upon God who calls. See comment on vil. 30. 


Ver. 12. éppé3y] in Gen. xxv. 23. The citation is from 
the Septuagint. The immediate reference was to the right 
of primogeniture, yet as typical of the spiritual birthright of 


286 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


* Kadas yéyparrat Tov IaxaB iyamrnoa, tov bé >Hoad 
éulonoa. 


“the children of the promise” who “are counted for the 
seed” (ver. 8). So far as the fulfilment of the prophecy that 
the elder should serve the younger is concerned, it was ful- 
filled in the final incorporation of the Edomites, the descend- 
ants of Esau, into the Jewish state, under the Maccabees, 
after several conquests and revolts. Idumea was first con- 
quered by David (2 Sam. viii. 14); it revolted in the reign of 
Joram (2 Kings viil. 20); was again subjugated by Amaziah 
and Uzziah (2 Kings xiv. 7, 22); revolted again under Ahaz 
(2 Chron. xxviil. 17), and continued independent, until John 
Hyrcanus subdued it for the last time. 


Ver. 13. yéyparra] in Malachi i. 2, 3: freely cited from 
the Septuagint. #ydaryca| here denotes compassion, not 
approval or complacency. God pities a sinner, but is dis- 
pleased with him. épionoa] the word “hate” is here used 
in the Hebrew sense, of “loving less,” or ‘“ showing less 
favor towards.” (Grotius, Calvin, Pareus, Tholuck, Flatt, 
Stuart, Hodge, Schaff). It is employed comparatively, and 
not positively, Gen. xxix. 30, 31, 33; Mat. vi. 24; Luke xiv. 
26; John xii. 25. In the classical and usual sense, God, as 
holy, hated doth Jacob and Esau, because both were the sin- 
ful children of Adam, and were alike “children of wrath,” 
Kph. ii. 8. Had the divine purpose been determined by this 
species of hatred, Jacob would not have been elected any 
more than Esau. But, since the election and rejection were 
not founded on any moral trait or conduct of Jacob and 
Ksau, either holy or sinful, the love and hatred here alluded 
to cannot be God’s feeling toward holiness and sin. The 
“love,” here, is the exercise of compassion, and the “hatred” 
is the non-exercise of compassion. ‘‘ Odisse est non diligere, 


CHAPTER IX. 13. 287 


et bonum vitze zeternz alicui non velle. Reprobare, est non 
elegere, et bonum zeternze vit alicui non velle.” Pareus, in 
loco. Compare Mat. xi. 25, where ‘‘to hide” means “ not to 
reveal.” It is the negative, and not the positive agency of 
God. Calvin (in loco) thus explains jyarnoa and éuicnoa: 
“T chose the one, and rejected the other; and I was thus led 
by my mercy alone, and by no worthiness as to works.” This 
showing of compassion, and refraining from showing it, re- 
lated primarily to the birthright and its privileges: to the 
theocratic election and reprobation. But as Jacob and Esau 
were typical persons, the same definition of the terms ‘‘love” 
and “hate” applies to the spiritual election and reprobation 
of individuals, in the two classes represented by them. 
When God “loves” a man with electing love, he manifests 
and extends compassion toward him; and at the same time 
he hates his iniquity. And when God “hates” a man with 
reprobating hatred, he does not manifest and extend his 
compassion toward him; and at the same time he hates his 
iniquity. The question arises whether the theocratic cor- 
responded with the individual election and reprobation, in 
‘the cases of Jacob and Esau themselves. The fact that each 
was a typical person favors the affirmative; because the sym- 
bol is most naturally homogeneous with that which it sym- 
bolizes. It would be unnatural to set forth a spiritually elect 
person as the type of the reprobated class, and vice versa. 
And the history of Esau shows that his sinful self-will was 
not overcome by the electing compassion of God. Esau re- 
nounced the religion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in which 
he had been educated, and to which he might still have 
adhered, even though he had, by the divine will, lost his 
primogeniture, and lapsed into idolatry with his descend- 
ants. He falls, therefore, into the same class with the 
apostate Jews, and though “of Israel,” was yet not “Israel” 
(ver. 6). 


288 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


14 Py 5 b) A is \ iO / \ A 4 A F aos , 
i ovy épodpev ; fun) aduKia Tapa TO Jed ; er yévowro. 
od lal / > e nr 
* 7@ Mavoei yap déyes EXenjow ov av €hed, kal oixTeipijco 


Ver. 14 begins an apologetic paragraph, in which the 
doctrine of election and reprobation is defended. The objec- 
tion is raised that in such a discrimination as that between 
Jacob and Esau, God acts unjustly. x7 dducia] the subjective 
form of the question implies doubt. Compare iii. 3. apa] 
in relation to attributes and qualities, is equivalent to “in” 
(Matthiz, cited by Meyer). Perhaps it means “ before,” “in 
the presence of ” God, as a judge (Winer, 395). The charge 
of injustice evinces, as Calvin (in loco) remarks, that elec- 
tion, in St. Paul’s view, is not determined by the greater 
merit, and reprobation by the greater demerit of the sub- 
jects respectively. Had this been the case, there would have 
been no color of reason for objecting to the doctrine as 
unjust. 


Ver. 15. The scriptural argument is first employed. God, 
in the Old Testament revelation, has asserted that he will 
elect and reprobate, according to his own self-determination; 
and the implication is, that God cannot be doing unjustly in” 
a thing which he has said he willdo. The argument runs 
back, ultimately, into the idea and definition of God. The 
absolutely perfect Being can do no wrong. See comment on 
ii. 4. The citation is from Ex. xxxiil. 19, according to the 
Septuagint. éAeyow] denotes mercy.  oixreipjow| denotes 
compassion. The latter, says Tittmann, is the feeling in 
view of the suffering; the former is the desire to relieve it. 
Meyer asserts that the difference between the two words is 
only of degree: the latter being the stronger term. The dis- 
tinction between the existence of a fecling and its expression 
must be observed, here. Mercy or compassion is @ necessary 
feeling in the divine nature; but its mx estation toward 


CHAPTER IX. 16. 289 


persons is ptional and sovereign. God may have precisely 
the same compassionate sentiment toward two sinful and 
miserable men, considered simply as sinful and miserable, 
and yet for an internal reason, known only to himself, may 
refrain from giving it expression toward one of them, This 
is taught in the words: “I will have compassion upon whom 
I please to have compassion.” Says Charnocke (Goodness of 
God), “God is necessarily good [compassionate], in regard 
to his nature, but freely good in regard to the effluxes of it 
to this or that particular subject he pitcheth upon. He is 
not necessarily communicative of his goodness as the sun is 
of his light, that chooseth not its objects, but enlightens all 
indifferently». This were to make God of no more under- 
standing than the sun, to shine not where it pleaseth, but 
where it must, Godt. an understanding agent, and hath a 
sovereign right to choose his own subjects; it would not be 
a supreme goodness, if it were not a voluntary goodness. 
He is absolutely free to dispense his goodness in what 
methods and measures he pleaseth, according to the free 
determinations of his own will, guided by the wisdom of his 
mind, and regulated by the holiness of his nature. He is not 
to ‘give an account of any of his matters’ (Job xxxiil. 13); 
he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and he will 
have compassion on whom he will have compassion; and he 
will be good to whom he will be good.” The key to the doc- 
trine of election and reprobation is in Christ’s parable of the 
laborers (Mat. xx. 1-16). It is “lawful” for God “to do 
what he will, with his own” unobligated mercy. 


Ver. 16 is an inference, introduced by dpa ovv, from the 
words of God in verse 15. It is of a general nature, enun- 
ciating a fact in the divine economy of grace. The exercise 
of grace does not depend upon the will of the person who 


receives it, hut 8 person who bestows it; as almsgiving 
13 


290 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Ov ay oikTeipw. * apa ovv ov Tov JédovTos ovdEe TOD Tpé- 

> \ ne mn a 17 ft \ ¢€ \ lel 

NOVTOS, GAAG TOU EAEWYTOS Jeod. Aeyes yap n ypadn TO 

Papaw, bts els avTO TOUTO EENyeLpa ce, Grrws évdeiEwpat ev 
paw, 


is determined not by the volition of the beggar, but of the 
patron. Jédovros| sc. éotw e\eos: the genitive denotes de- 
pendence, together with the notion of possession, like the 
Latin penes. Mercy is not under the control of the needy 
and helpless person who is endeavoring to obtain mercy. 
Jéovros denotes the internal activity, as opposed to tpéxovTos, 
which designates the intense action of the outward powers. 
The latter word is borrowed, as is frequent in the Pauline 
rhetoric, from the games. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 24. Some 
refer it to Esau’s unsuccessful hunt, to procure the venison 
for his father. 


Ver. 17. A confirmation, introduced by yap, of the state- 
ment in verse 16: freely cited from the Septuagint version 
of Ex. ix. 16. rv] is recitative. avrd roiro] this very thing, 
specifically. é&7yeypa] the word in the original Hebrew, is 
the Hiphil of 72»: to cause to stand, or, to place, which the 
Septuagint translates by duernpyIns. St. Paul’s rendering is 
the more exact, of the two. 1. I have raised thee up, and 
set thee upon the stage of action. Compare Mat. xi. 11; 
xxiv. 11; John vii. 52 (Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, 
Riickert, Olshausen, Tholuck, Philippi, Meyer, Schaff). 2. 
I have preserved thee alive (Grotius, Wolfius, Rosenmuller). 
3. Ihave made thee king (Flatt, Benecke). 4. I have ex- 
cited thee to resist: with reference to. cxAypive, ver. 18 (Au- 
gustine, Anselm, Venema, De Wette, Fritzsche, Haldane, 
Hodge, Stuart). The first is preferable. Pharaoh’s place in 
history, and his whole course of action was assigned to him 
by the decree and providence of God. It was not a matter 
of chance, but a part of the divine plan, with reference to a 


CHAPTER IX. 18. 291 


\ \ A f \ 4 a \ ” 4, ’ 
coi THY Svvapiv pou Kal Srws Suayyed} TO Ovowd pov év 
Taon TH yn. * dpa ovv dv Jédev Edel, Ov OE JéNer TKAN- 


particular end, which is mentioned in the context. Neither 
ia» nor ééyyeipeiv signify creative efficiency. For the nature 
of the divine agency in the case, see the explanation of oxAn- 
puvet, in verse 18, évdetSwpor] viz.: by Pharaoh’s defeat and 
destruction, which was a striking manifestation of the divine 
omnipotence. diayye\7 | denotes a proclamation far and wide, 
Luke ix. 60. ovoya] the name of that God who has shown 
such might. mdcoy yy] at first, only that part of the world in 
which the events occurred, and were known; but finally, the 
whole world, where they are universally leseaeee 


Ver. 18. A conclusion of the apostle, introduced by dpa 
ovv, from both of the divine affirmations: that to Moses, and 
that to Pharaoh. dy] in both instances denotes an actually 
existing individual, and not an ideal one: a real object upon 
whom the action designated by éAee? and oxAnpvve: terminates. 
God never elects or rejects a nonentity. It, also, in both in- 
stances, denotes a sinful individual; otherwise, he would not 
be an object of the merciful action in one case, and of the 
“hardening” action in the other. God never forgives and 
never “hardens” a holy being. This pronoun is fatal to the 
supralapsarian theory, which, in the order of decrees, places 
the deeree of election and reprobation, before the decree to 
create man and to permit the origin of sin by man’s self-de- 
termination. éAec] see comment on ver. 15. oxAnpiver] Com- 
pare Deut. ii. 30; Ex. iv. 21; xi. 10; Josh. xi. 20; Isa. ]xiii. 17. 
It is the opposite of édec?. Not to show mercy to a man is, in 
St. Paul’s use of the word, to “harden” him. To harden is, 
not to soften. Hardening is not the efficient action of God, 
since Pharaoh is said to have hardened his own heart, Ex. viii. 


15,32; ix. 34; x.16. The agency of God in hardening is in- 


292 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


action, rather than action. The Holy Spirit does not strive at 
all with the human will (Gen. vi. 3), and so permits the already 
sinful man to confirm himself in sin, by pure and unhindered 
self-determination, The restraints of conscience, and of the 
providential circumstances amidst which the man lives, may 
continue, but are overborne by the sinful will. This is the 
negative aspect of the hardening. But besides this, there 
may be a positive withdrawal of these restraints. This is 
punitive action, intended as retribution for past resistance of 
restraining circumstances and influences. See the explana- 
tion of zapédwxev in Rom. i. 24. In the instance of Pharaoh, 
the hardening included both of these features. God left 
the king of Egypt to his self-will, and also withdrew the re- 
straints that tended to check it. The charge of necessity, in 
such a reference is absurd. No more unhindered liberty can 
be conceived of, than this. The human will is left severely 
alone, to find the reason and source of its impulse wholly 
within itself. Sin is a more intense and wilful form of self- 
determination than holiness is; because, unlike the latter, it 
is the product of the human will in its solétary action, with- 
out any internal influence from God. ‘If hardness follows 
upon God’s withholding his softening grace, it is not by any 
efficient and causative act of God, but from the natural 
hardness of man. When God hardens a man, he only leaves 
him to his stony heart. God infuseth not any sin into his 
creatures, but forbears to infuse his grace, and to restrain 
their lusts, which, upon the withdrawal of restraints, work 
impetuously. When a man that hath bridled in a high- 
mettled horse from running, hath given him the reins; or a 
huntsman takes off the string that held the dog, and lets 
him run after the hare, are they the efficient cause of the 
motion of the one, or the other? No, but the mettle and 
strength of the horse, and the natural inclination of the 
hound: both of which are left to their own motions, to pur- 


ed 


CHAPTER IX. 19. 293 


puver. ™ épets wor ovv Ti odv ett pémpetar; TO yap Bovndn- 
pate avtov Tis avdéotnKer ; 


sue their own natural instincts.” Charnocke, Holiness of 
God. ‘Five times it is said that God hardened Pharaoh’s 
heart; three times that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. 
Pharaoh, then, was hardened differently by God, from what 
he was by himself. He hardened his own heart by wilfully 
resisting Moses, and despising God, and the judgments of 
God. God hardened his heart, by not converting his already 
hard heart into a heart of flesh.” Pareus, in loco. ‘The 
perdition of sinners,” says Calvin (Instit. III. xxiii. 8), “de- | 
pends upon the divine predestination in such a manner that 
the cause and matter of it are found in themselves.” 


Ver. 19. An objection not of the Jew exclusively, but of the 
unbeliever generally. It is suggested by the preceding state- 
ments concerning God’s compassionating one man and “ har- 
dening” another, as he pleases. oty| in view of what has been 
said, in verses 15-18. er] “‘still:” after having “‘ hardened,” 
i.e. PovdAnpatc] not JeAjpate (Mat. vi. 10): the decree in 
distinction from the desire or inclination of God; his secret 
as distinguished from his revealed will; the will of good 
pleasure, in distinction from the will of complacency. These 
two wills may be contrary to each other; as in the case when 
God decreed the sin of Adam. This sin was contrary to 
the divine will, in the sense of the divine desire or inclina- 
tion, because God forbad it; but was in accordance with the 
divine will, in the sense of the divine decision. God decreed 
what he hated and prohibited. The question, “ Who hath 
resisted his will?” does not refer to that will which is spok- 
en of in the Lord’s Prayer: “Thy will (9€Anua) be done on 
earth as itis in heaven.” This latter will is equivalent to the 
moral law (Rom. ii. 18), and is resisted by every man. Pha- 


294 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


20 9 ” fal \ / os e¢ ’ , 

@ avIpwre, wevodvye ov Tis EL O avTaTroKpLVOmEVoS 

Ta Jeo; 2) €pel TO TWAdCWAa THO TWAdcavTL Th pe erroi- 
é Red #1) P Id ra b 


raoh himself had resisted it. But it refers to that will which 
is never the object of prayer, viz.: the unconditional decree 
of God, which cannot be resisted, and the success of which 
is entirely disconnected with a creature’s petitions. The dis- 
tinction between the will of desire and the will of decree is 
illustrated in the human sphere by the difference between 
inclination and volition. A man frequently opposes the in- 
clination of his will, by a volition of his will. He decides to 
do what he is disinclined to do. dvdéornxev| the perfect with 
a present signification: ‘who resists, or can resist?” The 
objector does not dispute the fact that the divine decree is 
irresistible, but alleges that in the instance of “hardening” 
just mentioned it is causative and necessitating in its nature. 
Why should God punish a sin of which he is himself the 
author? is his inquiry. This is the zpérov Wetdos, in all anti- — 
predestinarian objections. 


Ver. 20 begins St. Paul’s reply to the allegation which is 
latent in the preceding question, viz.: that the doctrine of 
election and reprobation is fatalism. He first directs atten- 
tion to the general relation of man to God. The idea of God 
as the absolutely Perfect requires that his Justice and right- 
eousness should be presupposed under all circumstances. If 
there be an apparent conflict between the judgment of the 
Creator and that of the creature, it must be assumed that 
the latter and not the former is in error. This appeal to the 
transcendental idea of God, is frequent in St. Paul’s writ- 
ings. Compare Rom. iii. 4. pevotvye| is good-naturedly ironi- 
eal: “yes, forsooth.” ov ris ef] is contemptuous, but not bit- 
terly so: “homunculus quantulus es.” The immense distance 
between the finite creature and the infinite Creator suggests 


CHAPTER IX. 20. 295 


the phraseology. The difficult problems in the Divine gov- 
ernment are to be approached with reverence toward God, 
and the presumption that he is righteous in all his ways. 


avraroKkpuopevos| “to enter into a dispute with: ” 


involving 
an irreverent equalizing of man with God. zddcpa] the 
Apostle continues the reference to the transcendent superi- 
ority of God, by noticing the fact that he is the former and 
disposer, and man the thing formed and disposed. Creation 
ex nihilo is not meant here. This would require xriois. The 
term wAdcpa designates only the plastic act of the moulder. 
The whole sinful mass of mankind lies in the hand of God, 
like clay in the hand of the potter. Compare Isa. xxix. 16; 
xly. 9. Also Ecclesiasticus xxxili. 13. ézotjoas| is explana- 
tory of wAdcav7, denoting the fashioning of something al- 
ready in existence, and not the creation of substance from 
nonentity. “Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth [not 
createth| it?” Isa.xlv.9. The clay is already in existence 
having certain definite properties, and is merely shaped into 
a certain form by the potter. The potter’s agency imparts 
none of the qualities of clay to the vessel. Similarly, man- 
kind is viewed as already in existence, and as having the 
definite characteristic of sin produced by ifs own agency, 
and as such, is either elected or reprobated. “It is to be 
borne in mind, that Paul does not, here, speak of the right of 
God over his creatures as creatures, but as sinful creatures” 
(Hodge, in loco). The question to which the Apostle directs 
his answer, is not: ‘Why hast thou made me a sinner?” 
but: “Why hast thou left me in sin?” The only answer to 
the first question that he would have given, would be to deny 
the alleged fact. Many of the anti-predestinarian objections 
proceed upon the supposition that the first of these questions 
is the one to be answered, and that the problem of the pre- 
destinarian is to reconcile reprobation with a causative agen- 
ey of God in the origin and continuance of sin, For exam- 


296 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


: id A 
noas ovTws; "7 ovk exer e€ovciav 0 KEepapeds TOU Ty- 
od €x Tov avToD dupdpaTos Toljoat O pev Els TIA 

a @ / 
oKEvOS, 0 O€ Els ATYLLAD ; 


ple, Philippi (ix. 35) says, “If the guilt of Israel’s rejection 
lies in its unbelief, the absolute predestination of God can- 
not be regarded as its cause. It is impossible for God to re- 
quire what he himself refuses, and to punish what he himself 
causes.” This is an erroneous view of predestination. The 
unbelief is se/f-originated, and invincible by the self. God 
decides not to overcome it in a particular individual, and 
thereby predestines him to perdition. The complaint of 
the objector really is, that God does not save him from his 
sin. To which the reply is, that God may rightfully do as 
he pleases in such a case. ovrws| denotes the condition of 
one like Ishmael and Esau, whom God “hardened” by not 
“ having mercy ” upon him, 


Ver. 21 continues the reasoning, by explaining the figure 
of the potter in verse 20. ¢éfoveiav| the right and preroga- 
tive, Mat. xxi. 23; 1 Cor. viii. 9. aitod @vpaparos| the self- 
same mass of clay, having properties not originated by the 
potter. The figure of the potter (Jer. xviii. 3-6) describes 
God as a Savior, not as a Creator. St. Paul is discussing, 
here, the liberty of God in respect to delivering Jews and 
Gentiles generally (represented by Jacob, Esau, and Pha- 
raoh), not from the consequences of his creative and causa- 
tive agency, but of their own self-determination. As a mass 
or “lump,” by the action of free will they are all sinful and 
guilty. The mode and manner in which this has occurred, 
has been described in Rom. vy. 12, sq. The doctrine of elee- 
tion and reprobation stands, or falls, with that of the sin 
in Adam. The voluntary, unnecessitated origin of sin must 
be conceded. The whole species having become evil and 


CHAPTER IX. 22, 297 


guilty before God, by its own act (zavres jpaprov), he has the 
same right to pardon and sanctify a portion of the species, 
and to pass by, or, technically, to “hate” the remainder of 
it, that the potter has to mould one sort of vessel out of one 
part of the lump of clay, and another sort of vessel from an- 
other part. “In the sovereignty here asserted, it is God as 
a moral governor, and not God as a creator, who is brought 
into view. It is not the right of God to create sinful be- 
ings in order to punish them, but his right to deal with 
sinful beings according to his good pleasure, that is here 
asserted ” (Hodge, in loco). In the instances in which the 
metaphor of the clay and potter is employed by Isaiah and 
Jeremiah, it is applied to the Jews as ‘an wnclean thing.” 
Compare Isa. lxiv. 6, 8.  tyyv and dtyiay| denote the des- 
tined uses of the vessels, respectively. Compare 2 Tim. ii. 
20, 21. 6 pév oxedos] the relative is put for the article in 
antithetic sentences. Compare 1 Cor. xi. 21. (Winer, 105.) 

Verses 22-29 contain a further defence of the divine econ- 
omy of redemption, in the election of some and the reproba- 
tion of others, upon two grounds: 1. That God shows for- 
bearance and patience toward the non-elect, in enduring 
their sin which is so abominable in his sight, and in delaying 
their punishment when strict justice requires their immedi- 
ate and swift destruction. The non-elect are treated better 
than they deserve, and, therefore, have no just ground of 
complaint against God. 2. That God desires to show, dur- 
ing this period of forbearance and delay of punishment, his 
mercy toward the elect. 


Ver. 22 is a conditional interrogative sentence, the apodo- 
sis of which is not expressed, but is suggested by dvrazoxpt- 
vopevos TO JeG in verse 20: “If the fact is as follows, will you 
reply against God?” Compare John vi. 62; Acts xxiii. 9, 


ci] if, as is the fact. 8] is adversative (Winer), not transi- 
136 


298 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS, 


2 6? 88 Sérav 6 Feds evdeiEacIar Thy dpyiv Kal yva- 
, \ n >/ a ste 
picas TO Svvatov avTov iveyKey ev TOA paxpodupig 
7 an > f 
oKeUN OpyAs KaTnpTLopEéva els amTr@deLay, 


tive (Meyer). The argument here is of a different nature 
from that in verses 20, 21. That was founded upon the idea 
of God, and the optional nature of mercy. This is founded 
upon the ill desert of man, and the divine patience in refer- 
ence to it. Consequently, something more than a transition 
from one topic to another of the same kind is indicated by 
the particle. Jedwv] “inclined:” “willing” (Eng. Ver.) is 
inadequate. See comment on ver. 19. The mere permission 
of God is not meant; nor the purpose of God: which would 
require Bovdciwy ; but the deep and strong desire: a will that 
was so profound and intense as to require that self-restraint 
which is denominated the patience and long-suffering of 
God (ii. 4). The phrase JéAuv évdeiEaota. opyiv denotes the 
spontaneity of the divine holiness, “ the fierceness and wrath 
of Almighty God” against sin (Rev. xix. 15), which is held 
back by the divine compassion, upon the ground of the iAac- 
typiov. See comment on ili. 25. The participle is here em- 
ployed limitatively, xairo. being understood (Winer, 344): 
“although inclined.” Notwithstanding the immanent and 
eternal indignation of God against the wickedness of men 
like Tiberius and Cesar Borgia, there was in their history a 
long-continued and strange forbearance to punish them. 
This is sometimes so marked, as to be painful to the human 
conscience, leading men to cry out: “How long, O Lord, 
how long?” If God bears patiently for a time with such 
persons, not destroying them at the first moment, but defer- 
ring the punishment prepared for them, what ground for com- 
plaint have they before the bar of eternal justice? And the 
reasoning that is true in reference to Tiberius and Borgia, is. 
true substantially, in reference to every non-elect sinner. 


CHAPTER IX. 22. 999 


The difference is only one of degree in sin (1 Tim. i. 15). The 
principle is the same. Every non-elect man will have been 
treated by God better than he deserved. In this divine self- 
restraint, God evinces kindness even toward those whose 
obstinate self-determination in sin he does not think proper 
to overcome by special grace. dvvardv] the exercise of retri- 
butive justice is an exertion of omnipotence. jveyxev| is gen- 
eral in its reference, like oxAnpvver in verse 18, and not to be 
referred particularly to Pharaoh. zoAdj| the divine patience 
and forbearance toward the sin of the non-elect is very great, 
especially when the sensitiveness of the divine holiness in 
respect to sin is considered. To bear with sin is easy for 
the deity of Epicurus, but not for the living God of Israel. 
The stoic Antoninus asks: ‘‘Can the gods, who are immor- 
tal, bear without indignation, for the continuance of so many 
ages, with such and so many sinners, yea not only so but 
also take such care of them that they want nothing; and 
dost thou so grievously take on as one that could bear with 
them no longer: thou that art but for a moment of time; 
yea, thou that art one of those sinners thyself?” Medita- 
tions vii. 41. oxevy| is anarthrous, because no particular 
individuals are meant, but the class, generally, of the repro- 
bated. dpyfs| the genitive of quality: objects of wrath, 
Compare réxva épyijs, Eph. ii. 3. xarnpricpéva] 1. used adjec- 
tively: “fit for” (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, De 
Wette, Tholuck, Lange). This is favored by the change 
to another word (zponroiuacev), and another ‘tense, in verse 
23, where the elect are spoken of. 2. Used participially: 
“‘prepared for:” by themselves (Grotius, Bengel); by God 
(Augustine, Calvin, Meyer). This last explanation must be 
connected with the Augustino-Calvinistie doctrine of the 
permissive decree. The divine agency in reprobation is not 
regarded as causative of sin, dawAeav| endless perdition: 
the Javaros of v. 12. 


300 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


23 vd U \ al Si 60 bY r hme 
Kal wa yvaplon Tov mrovTOY THs do—ns avTod ert 

f / aA , ? 60 24 my \ 3 tA 
oKevn €déous, & TponTowaceyv eis Ookav; ~ ods Kal EKd- 
Aecev nuads ov povov €& “LIovdaiwy adda Kal é€& éedvar, 


Ver. 23 continues the vindication of God, by giving an 
additional reason for the divine patience and forbearance. 
kat] ‘and also:” supply nveyxev év woddy, ete. If God had 
invariably visited sin with immediate retribution, in accord- 
ance with the promptings of immaculate holiness, there 
would have been no opportunity for the manifestation of 
his mercy toward the elect. In this case, there could have 
been no elect: all must have been reprobated and punished. 
d0éys| the divine excellence generally, with particular refer- 
ence, here, to the attribute of merey. Compare Eph. iii. 16. 
exit] denotes the exuberant overflow wpon the objects of 
mercy. poytoimacey| 1. “ predestined,” as in Eph. 1.10. 2. 
“prepared.” The latter is preferable, because of the previous 
figure of the potter, and of the kindred word karypticpeva 
applied to the non-elect. The vessels of compassion are pre- 
pared for heaven by the grace of God. The divine agency, 
in this case, is direct efficiency. The decree is efficacious. 
God works in man, “ both to will, and to do,” Phil. ii. 15. 
If the second explanation is adopted, the preposition in the 
verb refers to the preparation as being prior to the enjoy- 
ment of the glory. ddgav| heavenly glory. 


Voir. 24. ods] relates to oxen éXéos, and is masculine, with 
npas, by attraction, éxdAecev] See comment on vill. 30. 
lovdaiwv] ‘election applies to the Jews, in accordance with 
the previous affirmation ‘‘that they are not all Israel which 
are of Israel” (ix. 6). xai] the elect are taken from the Gen- 
tiles also, as well as from the Jews. 


Ver. 25 proves, from the Old Testament, that vessels of | 
mercy are to be chosen out of the Gentiles. The quotation 


ya 


CHAPTER IX. 26, 2%. 3801 


*@s Kai ev TO None reyes Kadéow Tov ov adv wou adv 

pou Kal TIV ovK HyaTNMEeVHY HyaTTHMEeVNY, “ Kal EcTaL ev TO 

TOmT@ ov Eppéedn avTots Ov ads pov Umels, Exel KANIHCOVTAL 
p ob éppédn adrois 3 pou Duels, ” 


is from Hosea ii. 25, and is not exactly literal either from 
the Hebrew or from the Septuagint. The order of the 
clauses is reversed. In the prophecy, the reference is to the 
ten tribes; but as they had been excluded from the theo- 
cracy, and so were virtually heathen, the apostle regards 
them as the type of the Gentiles universally. od Aady| “ob 
combined with nouns into one idea, obliterates their mean- 
ing altogether: ” Winer, 476, who cites, Rom. x. 19; 1 Pet. 
ii. 10; Thucid., i. 187; v. 50; Eurip., Hippol., 196. ov jya- 
mpevnv| is the Septuagint (ver. 23) rendering of nama xD 
The Hebrew om signifies to show mercy, so that, as in 
ix. 13, compassion and not complacency is the feeling in- 
tended. 


Ver. 26 is taken from Hosea i, 10, almost literally from 
the Septuagint (ii. 1), and is combined with the preceding 
quotation from the prophet, so as to make one connected 
sentence. Such combinations are frequent in Rabbinical 
citations from the Old Testament. éo7a] should have no 
comma after it, because it is not Paul’s but the prophet’s 
word. dz] refers, in Hosea, to Palestine, where the threat 
of reprobation from the theocracy, and the promise of future 
restoration to it, was spoken to the ten tribes. But as the 
Apostle has made the ten tribes the type of the Gentiles, the 
“place,” here, must be the Gentile lands. The heathen, 
hitherto externally reprobated (od dads), are to be called into 
the kingdom of God all over the world. «dAyIynoovra] not 
merely named, but called with the “calling” of viii. 30. 


Ver. 27. The Old Testament citations in verses 25, 26, 
prove the election of a part of the Gentiles (é& éJvav: ver. 


302 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


viot Jeod Cavtos. ” Hoaias bé xpdfeu imép tod “Iapaijnr 
*"Eav 4 6 apiSuos Tav viev “IopayrA ws 7 dmpos Tis 
24); the Apostle now quotes from the Old Testament to 
prove the reprobation of a part of the Jews. This, for the 
Jew, would be a more offensive tenet than even the calling 
of the Gentiles. ‘Paul now proceeds to the second point, 
with which he was unwilling to begin his reasoning, lest he 
should too much exasperate their minds. And it is not 
without a wise device, that he introduces Isaiah as crying 
out in wonder, not as merely narrating, in order that he. 
might excite more attention.” Calvin, in loco. There is’a 
recasting and combination of the original passages, as in the 
preceding citation. 6é] is adversative: not only is the elec- 
tion of the Gentiles taught in the Old Testament, dwt, also, 
the reprobation of the Jews. xpd] loud proclamation. 
Compare John, i. 15. tgp] is equivalent to zepi, in later 
Greek, with verbs of narration. éav 7j, etc.] The quotation 
is from Isa. x. 22: following the Septuagint, which differs 
only slightly from the Hebrew. iméAeypa] is supported by 
SAB Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles; the Sept., Receptus, with 
DEF have xardAcppa, The word is emphatic: “the remnant 
only.” owdjoerat| this is the Septuagint rendering of a4wy 
“will return.” The primary reference of the prophet was to 
the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile; it is ap- 
plied by St. Paul to Christ’s redemption. 


Ver. 28 continues the citation, taking the words from 
Isa. x. 23. The reading without the bracketed words is 
supported by SAB Peshito, Copt., Aith., Lachm., Tisch., 
Tregelles; with the bracketed words, by the Receptus, Sept., 
DEF, Vulg. The general doctrine is the same with either 
reading; and is well given in the English Version: “for he 
shall finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: be- | 


CHAPTER IX, 28. - 303 


Jaracons, TO virdrdeywpua owIijceTar. * NOYov Yap cuD- 
TeAOY Kal cuvTéuvwv [év SiKatocovvyn* STL NOYOV ouVTET- 


cause a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.” 
The execution of the divine decree of reprobation will be 
short, sharp, and decisive. There is no vacillation in the 
mind of God, when he has once decided. The present con- 
dition of the Jews, as a people, is a proof that Esau and 
those whom he represents find no peravoias torov. no “ way 
to change the mind” (Eng. Ver. margin) of God, ‘‘ though 
they seek it carefully with tears” (Heb. xii. 17). The Sep- 
tuagint rendering, which St. Paul adopts, departs consider- 
ably from the Hebrew text; and commentators themselves 
differ much in their renderings. Meyer’s version is as fol- 
lows: ‘Destruction is determined upon, and inflowing 
righteousness (i. e. retribution); for, destruction and (puni- 
tive) decision will the Lord Jehovah Sabaoth make in the 
midst of the whole land.” Adyov] the word of threatening, as 
in Heb. iv. 12: the reprobating decree; hence, the result of 
the word: the reprobating work (Eng. Ver., Beza, Melanch., 
Calvin). In the New Testament, Adyos, like the Hebrew 423 
(Jer. xliv. 4; 2 Sam. xi. 18), is sometimes equivalent to res, 
jfactum. Compare Mat. xix. 11; Mark i. 45; ix. 10; Luke 
i. 4. Schleusner, in voce. ovytehdv and ovrtéuvwv| denote 
the energy and swiftness of the divine action: the first refers 
to the complete accomplishment of the work; and the last 
to the winding up and ending of it. The two participles are 
adjuncts of kvpios. dixaoovvy| denotes retributive justice (iii. 
25). This reprobating work is grounded wholly in law and 
equity; and objections against it are objections against law 
and equity. It is subsequently (xi. 22) denominated “sever- 
ity:” 1. e. the strict and exact enforcement of righteousness. 
There is no compassion (xpyordrys, xi. 22) init. The ques- 
tion whether God may reprobate a portion of the human 


304 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


unuevov| roujser KUpLos él THs yas. ” Kat KaI@s TTpo- 

/ > oh ’ \ U \ b] iz (Mey. 
elpneev °Hoaias, Ei wn xdpios SaBawd eyxatédurev juiv 
oTréppa, ws Yodoua av eyevxInpev cai ws Téwoppa av 
DLOLmI nev. 


race, is simply the question whether he may be the God of 
retribution (xii. 19). 


Ver. 29. An additional quotation from Isaiah (i. 9), in 
proof of the reprobation of a part of the Jews. It is verba- 
tim from the Septuagint, which translates 77 (= survivor), 
by oméppa. mpoeipnxev| 1. “ has previously said,” in an earlier 
chapter (Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius). 2. “has prophe- 
sied” (Tholuck, Meyer). ‘The latter rendering requires a 
comma after cal. aan] the host of heaven, angelic and 
starry: mind and matter. This epithet is chosen, because 
election is an act of sovereignty. o7épua] not vegetable 
(Hodge), but animal. It denotes the same as 70 troAcpa 
(ver. 27): only a small number. os S0doua] had none been 
elected é& "Iovdaiwy (ver. 24), and all been rejected, the case of 
the Jews would have been like that of Sodom and Gomorrah, 

Verses 30 and 31 summarize the facts brought out in the 
previous discussion respecting election and reprobation: viz., 
that the Gentiles who have hitherto had no theocratic privi- 
leges and no outward call, are now the objects of God’s 
spiritual election; and the Jews who have hitherto had such 
theocratic privileges and the outward call, are now the ob- 
jects of God’s spiritual reprobation. Not that every Gentile 
without exception is individually elected, and every Jew 
individually reprobated. The apostle is speaking of the 
general condition of things, at the time he is writing. The 
Gentiles were then coming to Christ in multitudes, while the 
Jews in multitudes were rejecting him (Acts xxviii. 24-28). 
The general attitude of heathenism was believing; that of 


CHAPTER IX. 30. 305 


, i a ti , 
° Ti obv époduev; Ste E9vy Ta pH Sv@KovTa SiKaLo- 
"2 s 4 , \ x: > , 
cuvnv KatéraBev Sixarocvyvnv, Sixavocvvny Sé THY eK TI- 


Judaism was unbelieving. This state of things, so far as the 
Jews were concerned, the apostle teaches, was not always to 
continue (xi, 25-32). 

Ver. 30. ri ovv épotpev] “ What, then, is to be inferred,” 
from the statements in verses 6-29. Compare vill. 31; xi. 7. 
éJvy| is anarthrous, to denote not the heathen without ex- 
ception, but some of the heathen. a7) duoxovra] the figure of 
a race, as in Phil. iii. 12. There was no strenuous pursuit, 
in paganism, after conformity to law, and the happiness re- 
sulting from it. Paganism was sunk in sin, in the manner 
described in i. 18-32, and had no hope of a blessed immor- 
tality (Eph. ii. 2, 3,11, 12). dicatoovvyv] is anarthrous, and 
denotes here, subjective righteousness, or personal obedience 
of the law. Compare vi. 13, 16, 18-20. The moral perfection 
required by the law was not an object aimed at by the Gen- 
tile. «xarédaPev] to lay hold upon, or acquire. Phil. iii. 12, 13. 
Though the Gentile did not seek righteousness, yet he got it. 
duxatoovvyy| has the same subjective signification as in the 
preceding instance, but is followed by an explanation. 8uxa10- 
ovvynv 6¢| St. Paul now explains how the Gentile obtained a 
righteousness that he did not “run after,” and of what sort 
itis. It was the “righteousness without works,” and came 
to him through that electing act of God which has been de- 
scribed. God called him, and faith in Christ’s tAXaorypiov was 
the consequence (villi. 30). In this way he laid hold upon a 
righteousness that was equivalent to the perfect subjective 
righteousness required by the moral law, though not identi- 
eal with it. This difference and equivalency is marked by 
the adversative particle dé, and the explanatory clause ryv é 
mistews: Showing that the righteousness here specified is not 
the same in kind with that denoted by Sicaoodvyy in the two 


3806 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


areas, “’Icpaijr 5é Si@kwv vopov dSixatootvys eis vomov 
ovx épdacev. “ Siatt; OT’ ovK éx TicTEews, GAN as éE 


previous instances. See the comment on the same particle, 
and qualifying clause, in 1. 22. The substance of the whole 
statement in this verse is, that the Gentiles who did not 
pursue after inherent righteousness, obtained, by God’s elect- 
ing compassion, imputed righteousness ; they who did not 
attempt to earn salvation, had it given to them outright. 


VeER. 51 is a continuation of the sentence begun in verse 
30. dé] is adversative, showing that the Jews did, and ob- 
tained, exactly the opposite of what the Gentiles did, and 
obtained. vopov dixatoovvys| 1. for dukaoovvnv vouov, by Hebra- 
istic transposition: Acts v. 20, Rom. vii. 24 (Chrysost., Theo- 
doret, Calvin, Beza, Bengel). 2. the genitive of authorship: 
“a law that justifies” (Tholuck, Riickert, Meyer, Philippi). 
3. vopnov duxatoovvyns in the first instance, is the Mosaic moral 
law, and in the second, is the law of faith, iii. 27 (Flatt, De 
Wette). The first of these interpretations is preferable. The 
duxcuoovvyn voyov is the perfect personal righteousness pre- 
scribed and required by the law, and is the same as the 
ducacoovvyn of verse 30, The Jews pursued after this, and did 
not obtain it. The Gentiles did not pursue after this, and 
obtained its equivalent. «is vowov| (without ducacoovvys) is the 
reading of NABDE Copt., Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. The 
Peshito, Vulgate, Receptus, KL add dixaoovvys. It is im- 
plied, even if not expressed; because the same thing is meant, 
as in the preceding clause. The repetition is for the sake 
of emphasis. é}Jacev] is equivalent to xaré\afev, in verse 30. - 
It denotes acquisition or attainment. Compare Phil. iii. 16. 

Vir. 32. Assigns the reason why the Jews did not lay 
hold upon and obtain the perfect righteousness required by 
the law: viz., because they adopted the method of works. © 


CHAPTER IX. 33. 3807 


épyav: mpocéxopav yap TO ALI@ TOD TpocKopMpaTos, 
* kados yéypartat “Idov tiInus év Yiwv NiIov TpocKop- 
patos Kal TéTpav ocKaVddXoU, Kal 0 TLCTEvWY eT AUT@ OU 
KATALOYUV-INC ETAL. 


This method, as St. Paul has abundantly shown, fails in the 
ease of sinful man, 1. because there is no expiation of sin; 
2. there is no inward and spiritual obedience of the law. 
Neither justification nor sanctification are possible, if they 
are “sought not by faith, but by the works of the law.” 
dati] sc. eis vouov duxavoovvyns otk epdacev. ex miotews] se. 
ediwéav vopov dikatocvvys. ‘The Jews could have obtained the 
righteousness required by the law, by exercising faith in 
Christ. dd] sc. edtwfav. os| They pursued after the righte- 
ousness, “‘as if” it could be obtained in this way. Compare 
2 Cor. iii. 5. yap] introduces a proof of the preceding state- 
ment, drawn from an actual fact in the history of the Jews. 
AiIw]| a figure for Christ crucified: the doctrine of vicarious 
atonement, the nucleus of this Epistle, is specially meant. 
The history of the Christian religion shows that this is the 
most offensive to human pride of all the Christian dogmas. 
See Luke ii. 84; 1 Cor. i. 23. The figure of stumbling agrees 
well with the previous use of dudxeuv. 


Ver. 33. This stumbling was foretold by Isaiah (viii. 14; 
xxvill. 16). The two verses are blended: “God declares 
that he would be to the people of Judah and of Israel, for a 
rock of offence, at which they should stumble and fall. 
Since Christ is that God who spoke by the prophets, this 
prophecy is fulfilled in Christ” (Calvin, in loco). Compare 
1 Pet. ii. 6-8. karauryuvIjoerar| is the Septuagint rendering 
of wan (= to flee, from fear). “This is subjoined for the 
consolation of the godly; as though he had said: Because 
Christ is called the stone of stumbling, there is no reason 


308 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


that we should dread him; for he is appointed for life to be- 
lievers ” (Calvin, in loco). Compare v. 5. 

The 32d verse is a highly important one, because it brings 
to notice the difference between election and reprobation. — 
According to the preceding statements of St. Paul, men are 
elected, and saving faith in Christ is the consequence. LElec- 
tion does not presuppose faith. There is no faith prior to 
the electing act of God, and consequently faith must be pro- 
duced by this act. Faith is the gift of God (Eph. ii. 8). 
Hence faith is only the secondary instrumental cause of sal- 
vation. But, in the 32d verse, man’s unbelief and rejection 
of Christ is assigned as the primary and efficient cause of 
perdition, and, consequently, the divine act of reprobation 
as the secondary and occasjonal cause. In the instance of 
reprobation, there is unbelief already existing ; for repro- 
bation supposes the existence of sin. Consequently, the 
reprobating act does not (like the electing act) originate 
any new moral quality in the man. It merely lets an exist- 
ing quality, viz.: unbelief, continue. Reprobation is, there- 
fore, not the efficient and guilty cause of perdition, but only 
the occasional and innocent cause of it. St. Paul repeats 
the same truth in xi. 20: “ Well: because of unbelief they 
were broken off.” 

The facts, then, in St. Paul’s theory of reprobation are as 
follows: God does nothing to save the non-elect sinner. 
His action is inaction. God passes the man by, in the be- 
stowment of regenerating grace. He has a right to do so, 
because he does not owe this grace to any man. The divine 
inaction, or preterition, is the occasional cause of the sinner’s 
perdition: the efficient cause being the obstinate self-determi- 
nation of the human will; as a man’s doing nothing to pre- 
vent a stone from falling, is the occasional cause of its fall, 
the efficient cause being gravitation. If this self-determina-_ 
tion in sin were superable by the human will itself, the 


CHAPTER IX. 33. 809 


inaction of God in reprobation would not make the man’s 
perdition certain. Although God had decided to do nothing 
to save him, he might save himself. But this obstinate 
self-determination to evil is insuperable by the human 
will (John vii. 34; Rom. vii. 7). Consequently, mere in- 
action, or doing nothing, on the part of God, results in 
an everlasting self-determination to sin, on the part of man. 
The doctrine of reprobation is necessarily connected with 
that of self-originated sin, and bondage in sin. Viewed 
in this connection, there is no foundation for the charge of: 
fatalism, frequently made by anti-predestinarian exegetes, 
of which the following extract from Meyer (in loco) is an 
example. ‘The contents of Rom. ix. 6-29, in themselves 
considered, certainly exclude the notion of a divine decree 
that is conditioned by the self-determination of the human 
will, or of an absolute agency of God that depends upon 
that of the individual man; but, at the same time, they 
equally exclude the fatalistic determinism, the tremendum 
mysterium of Calvin, which, as Augustine’s theory had pre- 
viously done, robs man of his self-determination and free- 
dom in respect to salvation, and makes him the passive ob- 
ject of the arbitrary and absolute will of God.” ; 

God is the author of salvation, because he elects; but he 
is not the author of perdition, because he reprobates. In 
the first instance, he is efficiently active, by his Spirit and 
word; in the second instance, he is permissively inactive. 
If John Doe throw himself into the water, and is rescued by ° 
Richard Roe, the statement would be that he is saved be- 
eause Richard Roe rescued him. But if John Doe throw 
himself into the water and is not rescued by Richard Roe, 
the verdict of the coroner would be suicide, and not homi- 
cide: ‘‘ Drowned because he threw himself in,” and not: 
‘Drowned, because Richard Roe did not pull him out.” 
Compare Hosea xiii. 9. 


CHAPTER X. 


Aderdol, % pev edvdoxia Ths éuhs Kxapdias Kal 7 dén- 
als TMpos Tov Jeov Umép avTav eis owTypiav. * papTUpa 


Sr. Paut, in this chapter, enters into an examination of 
the reason mentioned in ix. 32 why the Jews did “not attain 
to the righteousness of the law:” viz., because they sought 
it through their own personal obedience (é épywv), and not 
by trust in Christ’s vicarious obedience (é« aiorews). The 
Apostle proves, chiefly by Old Testament citations, that the 
efficient and meritorious cause of the perdition of the Jews 
was their unbelief in, and rejection of Christ, the promised 
Messiah and Redeemer. 


Ver. 1. St. Paul repeats his assurance of deep interest in 
the Jews. Compare ix. 1-5. evdoxia] does not, primarily, 
denote desire (Chrysost., Theodoret, De Wette, Olshausen), 
but kindness and compassion (Augustine: bona voluntas; 
Calvin: benevolentia; Meyer), Compare Eph. i. 5; Phil. i. 15; 
ii. 13. It is the word which designates the feeling in God that 
prompts his election of individual sinners. See comment on 
ix. 13. St. Paul has the same benevolent compassion for 
his unbelieving Christ-rejecting brethren ‘according to the 
flesh.” déyots| the compassion prompts the prayer, which is 
a desire. Bengel remarks: “ Non orasset Paulus, si absolute 
reprobati essent.” This would be true, provided the fact of 
their absolute reprobation had been revealed to Paul. In. 
this case, prayer would be forbidden, as it is in the case of 


CHAPTER X. 2, 3. all 


yap avtois ote Shrov Jeod Eyovow, adr’ ov Kat’ ériyvw- 
aw * ayvoouvtes yap THv Tod Jeov duxatoc’ynv, Kal TI 
idtay Sixatocvvnv EntodvTes oThoal, TH Sixavocvvn Tod 


the “sin unto death” (1 John v. 16). But as no such reve- 
lation had been made, the Apostle’s prayer would have been 
natural and proper, even though it were a fact in the divine 
mind that the subjects of the prayer were reprobated. The 
divine decree is not the guide of human supplication, but 
the benevolent feeling of the pious heart. Since no man 
knows what the divine decree is, and who the reprobate are, 
the prayer for the salvation of men must be indiscriminate, 
and for all without exception. Moreover, there is no alter- 
native but to pray either for all men, or for none. In his 
ignorance of the divine purpose, the Christian, must pray 
for all, in order to pray for any. adrdv| instead of rod ‘lopaya, 
is the reading of SNABDEF Peshito, Vulg., Coptic, Lachm., 
Tisch. is owrypiav] denotes the end aimed at in the 


prayer. 


Ver. 2 gives the reason, introduced by yap, for the com- 
passion and the prayer. Jeod| the genitive of the object: 
oueead. . ©Compare.John, i. b7; Acts xxi. 20s xxi, 3s 
Gal. i. 14. As examples of false zeal for God, see John xvi. 
2; Acts xxvi. 9-11. ériyvwow] the preposition is intensive 
(i. 32): the zeal was not founded upon a clear and discrimi- 
nating knowledge. 


Ver. 3 explains the clause, év kar’ éxiyyvwow. aryvoodvres| 1. 
to misconceive: implying some knowledge that is vitiated by 
the fault of the person, as in i1.4; 1 Cor. xiv. 38 (Wolfius, De 
Wette, Tholuck, Lange). 2. to be entirely ignorant of (Meyer). 
The first is the true explanation, as verses 19-21 prove. 
The Old Testament contains the doctrine of ‘‘God’s righte- 
ousness,” in connection with that of the Messiah (i. 21); 


312 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


and the Jew was acquainted with it. But he modified and 
perverted it. Had the Jew been utterly ignorant upon this 
subject, as the Gentile was, he would not have been charge- 
able with a greater guilt than that which rests upon the 
Gentile (ii. 9,12). At the same time, the unbelief connected 
with this culpable and inexcusable ignorance is not so intense 
a form, as that which is accompanied with a clear and con- 
clusive knowledge, such, for example, as is possessed by the 
lost spirits in perdition. St. Paul mentions this fact, as one 
reason why he feels as he does toward his Jewish brethren. 
“He perceived that they had fallen through ignorance, and 
not through malignancy of mind” (Calvin in loco). Compare 
Christ’s words in Luke xxii. 34, and St. Paul’s statement 
respecting himself in 1 Tim, i. 13. Jeod dixacootvyy| the geni- 
tive of authorship: the gratuitous and imputed righteousness 
which God bestows. See comment on i, 17; i. 21. idiav 
dixatoovvyv | personal righteousness accruing from actual per- 
sonal obedience. Compare Phil. i. 9. It is the same that 
is meant by dukaocvvyv tiv éx vowov in verse 5: the righteous- 
ness €& épywy (ix. 32), as distinguished from the righteousness 
xwpis epywy (iv. 6). yroivres orjoa| they strenuously en- 
deavored to establish, or make valid before the bar of justice 
and reward, this personal righteousness. The attempt was 
a failure, for the reason, 1. that there is no tAacrypiov, no 
atonement for sin, in such a species of righteousness; and, 2. 
the obedience itself was not the spiritual and perfect service 
required by both conscience and the decalogue. The render- 
ing of the English Version: ‘ going about to establish” is feli- 
citous, implying the toilsomeness and futility of the attempt. 
imeradynoav| middle signification: the gratuitous imputed 
“righteousness of God” is conceived of as a divine arrange- 
ment, or ordinance, to which self-submission is due from 
every sinful man to whom it is made known. All legal en- 
deavor is hostility to evangelical requirement. He who 





CHAPTER X. 4. oko 


lol > id / 4 /. \ Lf Ai > 
Jeod ody bretdynaav. *Tédo0s yap vopsou Xpiotos eis 
Sixavocvyny TwavtTl TH TuotevorTt. * Mwions yap ypader 
THY SiKaLoctYnY THY EK VOmoV, bTL O TroLcas avTA avIpe- 


would work out a personal righteousness rejects Christ’s 
righteousness. The “ worker” excludes the “believer ” (iv. 
4, 5). 


Ver. 4 mentions an additional proof, introduced by dp, 
that the unbelieving Jew had not submitted himself to the 
“righteousness of God.” In rejecting Christ, as prophet, 
priest and king, he rejected this righteousness. réAos] is 
highly emphatic by position: 1. the end in the sense of 
termination, or ceasing to exist and operate: Christ abol- 
ished the law, as the means of justification, vi. 14; vii. 4, 6; 
Eph. 11.15 (Augustine, Luther, De Wette, Tholuck, Olshau- 
sen, Fritzsche, Meyer, Hodge); 2. the end, in the ‘sense of 
the aim. Christ is the goal to which the Old Testament law, 
both ceremonial and moral, conducts, Gal. iii. 24; Col. ii. 17 
(Chrysost?, Theodoret, Grotius, Beza, Bengel); 3. the end, in 
the sense of fw/filment: Christ vicariously meets all the re- 
quirements of the law, both as penalty and precept, xiii. 10; 
1 Tim. i. 5 (Origen, Erasmus, Calvin, Calovius, Wolfius). As 
the statement relates to Christ, the centre and substance of 
the Gospel, all of these explanations may be combined. 
Christ is the réAos, in each and every sense here mentioned. 
If a single explanation is to be adopted, the last is prefer- 
able, as agreeing with the tenor of the Epistle. The passages 
cited above show that St. Paul sometimes uses réAos in the 
sense of wArjpwpa. See, also, Mat. v. 17. eis dixarocvvnv] the 
purpose of Christ’s fulfilment of the law: viz., that the be- 
liever might be 8ékaos in every respect before the divine law. 
7G moTevovTt] is emphatic, and qualifies rav7l - not every man 


without exception, but every believing man. 
14 


314 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


VER. 5 begins the proof from the Old Testament, that 
salvation is by faith in Christ’s vicarious obedience, and not 
by man’s personal obedience. ypdder] writes of, or describes. 
ért] is recitative. The citation is from the Septuagint ren- 
dering of Lev. xviii. 5. Compare Nehem. ix. 29; Ezek. xx. 
21; Gal. ii.12. The “righteousness which is of the law” is 
the same as “ their own righteousness,” in verse 3. toujoas] 
denotes perfect obedience, external and internal, like épya{o- 
peévos in ivy. 4, See comment, aira] is omitted by SRADH, 
Vulg., Coptic, Tisch.; is supported by BFGL, Sept., Peshito, 
Recept., Lachm. airy] is the reading of SAB Vulg., Cop- 
tic, Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles; airots is that of Sept., DEFL 
Peshito, Receptus. The first refers to the righteousness; 
the latter, to the “statutes and judgments” mentioned in 
the passage in Leviticus. 


Ver. 6 begins another quotation from Moses (Deut. xxx. 
11-14), the purpose of which is to describe the “right- 
eousness of faith,” as the opposite of the “righteousness 
which is of the law.” The apostle substitutes “ righteous- 
ness of faith” for “‘commandment,” in the original passage 
(because the latter term is used comprehensively, of the whole 
doctrine of God which Moses was inspired to teach), and, 
personifying it, represents it as describing the way of life. 
Several views are taken. 1. The original passage is Mes- 
sianic. Moses is here prophetically describing the evangeli- 
cal righteousness by faith in the Messiah; as in Leviticus 
xvili. 5 (quoted in verse 5) he describes the legal righteous- 
ness, or that of perfect personal obedience (Calvin, Pareus, 
Olshausen, Fritzsche, Reiche). 2. St. Paul accommodates 
or adapts the language of Moses, which primarily refers only 
to the law and legal righteousness, to the gospel and evan- 
gelical righteousness (Chrysost., Luther, Beza, Rosenmiiller, 
Tholuck, Riickert, Hodge). 3. The Apostle allegorizes the ~ 











CHAPTER X. 6. 315 


passage, and somewhat violently wrests it from its original 
meaning, which has no connection with the doctrine of justi- 
fication by faith (De Wette, Meyer). The first view agrees 
best with the nature of the argument, which endeavors to 
prove the doctrine of justification from the Old Testament. 
Unless the words of Moses really teach this doctrine, the 
citation is logically worthless. That Moses understood and 
taught the gospel as well as the law, is proved by Luke xxiv. 
27; John v. 46; Acts iii. 22-26; xxvi. 22, 23; Rom. i. 21. 
He also taught all that Abraham understood and taught; 
and Abraham, the apostle has already shown, was divinely 
instructed respecting justification by faith (iv. 1-22). ‘ Mo- 
ses is speaking not concerning the law alone, but concerning 
the whole doctrine which he was inspired and commanded to 
teach to the children of Israel. This was not legal merely 
and only, but comprehended, also, evangelical truths and 
promises. He exhorts the people to observe his teaching 
(which he designates by two words: nizn, commandment, 
and npn, statute), because it was not secret, and difficult to 
be understood, but plain and clear. But this alone would 
not make the legal commandment easy to be obeyed. The 
gracious promise of mercy and help from God must be con- 
nected with it, in order to this. The gospel was associated 
with the law, in the doctrine of Moses viewed as a system of 
truth, and an entire whole. God promises to circumcise the 
heart of his people, and of their seed, that they may love the 
Lord their God with all their heart and soul, and that they 
may live (Deut. xxx. 6). This association of law with grace 
is seen clearly in the ritual and ceremonial part of the Mosaic 
institute. And it is indicated in the passage quoted by St. 
Paul, by the words, ‘In thy mouth, and in thy heart.’ As 
law, the doctrine of Moses was in the mouth; as grace it 
was in the heart.” Pareus in loco. Similarly, Calvin re- 
marks (in loco), “‘ If Moses spake of the law only, it had been 


316 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


/ > > Lol Caen Oe b] / 8 , ev 
mos tnoetat ev avtH. ° 1) O€ ex Tictews SiKaLoctvn OUTS 
reyes My elarns év tH xapdia cov Tis avaByoetas eis Tov 
ovpavov ; TodT értw Xpiotov Kkatayayeiv: *H Tis Kara- 
Byoetat eis tiv dBvoccov ; TOUT EctTw XptaTtov éx vEeKpaov 
> an 8? \ / / ? , \, (Gia) wea. 
avayayeiv. ° adda Ti Neyer; *"Eyyvs cou To phd éorw, 


a frivolous argument; since the law of God is no more easy 
to be done when it is put before our eyes, than when it is 
set at a distance. Therefore he means not the law only, but 
all the doctrine of God, which comprehends the Gospel un- 
der it.” This interpretation agrees with the statement in 
the opening of the Epistle (i. 2), that God, in the Old Testa- 
ment, ‘‘pre-announced the gospel concerning his Son Jesus 
Christ, by his prophets.” «trys év tH Kapdia] to speak in- 
wardly is, to think, Ps. xiv. 1; Mat. ii. 9. Thought is in- 
ternal language; and language is external thought. Thought 
and language are two modes of the same thing. tio dvaByoe- 
tat] the question of unbelief, regarding the incarnation : as 
if Christ had not already come upon earth. St. Paul does 
not here, or in the succeeding verses, conform exactly to the 
original phraseology, because he is quoting ad sensum. He 
indicates this, by not introducing the quotation by the usual 
formula, Moons ypader (ver. 5), or A€yee ) ypady (ix. 17). 


Ver. 7. tis katraByoera| a second question of unbelief, re- 
garding the resurrection: as if Christ had not risen from the 
dead. afvocov| the equivalent of Sheol, and Hades, when 
these are used in the sense of the grave (Gen. xxxvii. 35; 
Ps, xlix. 15; Acts ii. 27,31); and not in the sense of a place 
of retributive torment (Deut. xxxii. 22; Job. xxi. 13; Ps. ix. 
17; Prob. v. 5; Mat. xi. 23; xvi. 18; Luke xvi. 22-26; Rev. 
1.18; iii, 7; xx. 13, 14). rotr’ éorw, etc.] the clause explains 
the meaning of the descent into the abyss. 


Ver. 8. dAda td A€yer] sc. 7) Sucavootvy wictews. The utter- ; 


CHAPTER X. ole 


a fol a_> 
€V T@ OTOMATL Gov Kal év TH Kapdia Gov* TOUT éaTLW TO 
a lal , a c 
phya THs wictews 0 Knpvocouev. *° OTL edy Oporoynons 


ance of the righteousness of faith is directly contrary to 
what the unbeliever “‘says in his heart.” Unbelief raises 
objections and makes difficulties; faith gets rid of them in a 
mass, by resting in the omnipotence of God as promised and 
pledged in Christ. Its utterance is that of the Apostle 
before Agrippa: ‘Why should it be thought a thing in- 
credible, that God should raise the dead?” (Acts xxvi. 8). 
éyyvs| is strongly emphatic, by position. To obtain eternal 
life by laying hold upon a perfect righteousness close at 
hand, like that of Christ, is a far shorter and nearer way 
than to pursue after it (dux«ev, ix. 30), up and down through 
all space, in a prolonged and wearing personal effort that is 
baffled at every point, and proves in the end to have been 
utterly worthless and useless for the purpose aimed at. év 
T) ordpuari, etc.| the clause explains éyy’s. The revealed 
doctrine, or fact (fpjua), of the righteousness of faith, is in 
its own nature both theoretic and practical, truth and life 
(John vi. 63). Hence, it is not merely a word in the mouth, 
but a principle in the heart. As such, it is as nigh and close 
to man, as his own consciousness itself. aiorews| is the geni- 
tive of the object, and explains the nature of the word, or 
doctrine, taught by Moses, and re-affirmed by St. Paul. It 
is addressed to faith, and requires faith. Under the old 
economy, this faith was trust in the divine Redeemer as re- 
vealed to Adam and Abraham in the ‘‘ Seed of the Woman;” 
and to Moses and the Prophets in the Messiah. Under the 
new economy, it is trust in Jesus Christ. xypticoouev| denotes 
a public proclamation: the plural refers to the apostles ‘and 
evangelists, and the ministry generally. 


Ver. 9. dr] 1. is explanatory, denoting the purport of 


318 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


° n , TA tA ’ nr \ lA > lol 

év TO oTdpmati cov Kipiov “Inoody, Kal miotevons ev TH 
cy c \ lal a 

Kapdia cov OTL 0 Jeds avTov Hyeipev EK vexpO@V, TwIITH - 


the pia (Vulgate, Eng. Ver., Beza). 2. is logical, giving a 
proof: “because” (Tholuck, De Wette, Meyer, Stuart, Al- 
ford). The last is preferable, because the subject-matter of 
the doctrine or word preached, is not the subjective act of 
faith and confession, but the objective suffering and obedi- 
ence of Christ. The preacher’s great theme is Christ him- 
self, and not the believer’s trust in him. 6poAoyyons| public 
confession before men, Mat. x. 32, 33; xvi. 16-19; 1 Tim. vi. 
13. orduare] corresponds with oréuare in verse 8: the “ word” 
must be “in the mouth.”  xvpiov| is a predicate: ‘as Lord; ” 
there is a reference to dva8yoerat, in verse 6, The ascension of 
Christ into heaven implies his original divinity, and descent 
from heaven. The word xvpios is the Septuagint rendering 
of Jehovah, and any Jew who publicly confessed that Jesus 
of Nazareth was “ Lord,” would be understood to ascribe the 
divine nature and attributes to him. It is also the Old Testa- 
ment term for the Son of God, and the Messiah; and when 
Christ himself asserted that he was the Son of God, and the 
Messiah, he was charged with blasphemy (Mat. xxvii. 63-66), 
and with equalizing himself with God (John-xi. 24, 50, 33). 
motevons| denotes that inward act which is outwardly con- 
fessed: faith is the ‘‘ word in the heart,” antithetic to con- 
fession, which is the “word in the mouth” (verse 8). Faith 
and confession are two modes of the same thing: viz., the 
new divine life in the soul. Christian confession is as truly 
a gracious and holy act, as Christian faith. Hence the two 
are inseparable. There is no genuine faith if there is an 
aversion and unwillingness to confess faith. A man who is 
ashamed of Christ does not savingly believe in him. There 
may be saving faith when, owing to providential reasons, it 
is impossible to confess it publicly; but in this case there is ~ 


CHAPTER X. 10, 11. 319 


10 7 \ Y > , 4 AS 6 

Kapdia yap mioreveras eis SeKatocvvynv, orouaTe 5é opo- 
lal > / ll t \ e , a c 

NoyeltTaL evs TwWTHPLaV. réyes yap » ypadyn ITas o w- 


a desire to confess the faith of the heart, and the desire is 
the will, and the will, in the sight of God, is the deed (2 Cor. 
viii. 12). «apdia] corresponds with xopdia in verse 8. 7jyeipev] 
looks back to xaraByoerou in verse 7. Faith has special refer- 
ence to the atoning death, and triumphant resurrection of 
Jesus the Lord. owdyjon| corresponds to fjcerat, in verse 5. 
The salvation obtained under the gospel, is equivalent to the 
life that would have been obtained under the law, had man 
perfectly kept the law. 


Ver. 10 is an emphatic repetition of the necessity of con- 
fession and faith, in order to salvation. The order is now 
reversed, because this is the true order: faith being the root, 
confession the branch, Mat. xii. 34; 2 Cor. iv. 13. St. Paul, 
in the preceding statement, had followed the order of Moses. 
muteverat| the passive is employed for the sake of abstract 
universality. dicacorvvnv}] “righteousness without works,” or 
gratuitous justification. owrypiay| is the result and issue of 
justification. The meaning, of course, is not that faith is the 
instrumental cause of justification, and confession that of sal- 
vation. This is to divide the indivisible. Salvation supposes 
justification, and confession supposes faith. Each, therefore, 
may stand for the other. St. Paul could have said: “ With 
the heart, faith is exercised unto salvation, and with the 
mouth, confession is made unto justification; because sin- 
cere confession is meant, and this implies faith. 


Ver. 11 contains another citation from the Old Testa- 
ment (Isa. xxviii. 16) in the Septuagint version, in proof 
that faith is a saving act. The passage has already been 
quoted, in ix. 33. ds] is not in the Hebrew, or the Septua- 
gint, but is implied in 6 moreiwy. aire] refers to Christ, in 


320 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


otevav em aiT@ ov KaTaicxvvdnoetar. “ ob yap éeoTW 
Siacton) “Iovdaiov te kal“ EXdnvos* 0 yap avTos KUpLos 
mévT@v, TovTaY eis TavTas TOUS EéTLtKAAOUpLEVOUS AUTOV. 
8 Tas yap os dv émuxadéontas To dvowa Kupiov owdy- 


St. Paul’s application of the passage. The original justifies 
this application; for, the ‘precious corner stone” there 
spoken of is the Messiah. See Mat. xxi. 42.  xaroucxuvdyoe- 
tat] See comment on vy. 9d. 


Ver. 12 explains was in the preceding verse. od diacroAn] 
No difference, i. e., in respect to salvation by faith and con- 
fession. Compare iii. 22. 6 atrds] is the subject, and xvptos 
the predicate (Meyer). De Wette regards 6 adros xvptos as 
the subject, as in the English Version, The term kvpwos 
refers to Christ (Origen, Chrysost., Wolfius, Bengel, Tholuck, 
De Wette, Riickert, Fritzsche, Meyer, Philippi). It is re- 
ferred to God, by Theodoret, Theophyl., Pareus, Grotius, 
Ammon, Reiche, Umbreit. The first is best, as the Apostle 
speaks of Christ in both the preceding and following verses. 
“‘ Christ, according to Phil. ii. 11, is a Being who is to be 
worshipped as Lord of all; to whom émxadcioSar is referred 
in 1 Cor. i. 2, Acts ii. 21, ix. 14, xxii. 16; and to whom xdpus 
is ascribed in Rom. i. 5, v. 15, 2 Cor. xiii. 13.” (De Wette, 
in loco.) Meyer adopts the Arian distinction between calling 
upon God the Father as God in the absolute sense, and up- 
on Christ as the mediator between the Father and man. 
mAovtav| is a term descriptive of the divine fulness, which is 
attributed to Christ, in Coloss. il. 9. Compare Rom. v. 15; 
Eph, iii. 8. «?s] “towards,” or “in reference to.” 


Ver. 13. A quotation (without A€yeu 7) ypady) from Joel ii. 
32, according to the Septuagint. yap| does not belong to 
the citation, but introduces it. The sentiment is kindred to 
that of verse 11. He who believes in Christ shall not be dis- — 


CHAPTER X. 14, 15. o21 


cetat. “ Tas ovv émiKadécwvTal eis OV OUK éTTicTEVCA) ; 
TOS O€ TLoTEVTWSLY OV OUK HKOVCaY ; TAS bé aKOvcOVTAL 
Yopis KnpvocovTos ; * Tas dé KnpvEwWoW eav fn aTrocTa- 
Ad@ow ; Kadws yéyparrat ‘Qs wpaior oi odes TOV evay- 


appointed; and he who calls upon Christ shall be saved. 
Faith and prayer are cognate acts. Prayer to Christ for 
mercy and salvation is an act by which faith in Christ shows 
itself. The deity of Christ is implied in the fact that he is 
the Being upon whom universal man must call, in prayer, for 
eternal salvation. 


Ver. 14. The assertion that men must universally sup- 
plicate Christ for salvation, suggests the necessity of univer- 
sally preaching Christ, in order to this, Hence, the gospel 
requires the Christian ministry. ovv] a deduction from verse 
13. émuxadéowvtar| (é7uxadécovrat, Rec.) has the same subject as 
émukadeoyrot, in verse 13, viz.: Jews and Greeks indiscrimi- 
nately. «ypvocovtos| public and official proclamation. The 
Christian herald was called and set apart for ministerial ser- 
wWieew. 1, 5; Acts xii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 14. 


Ver. 15. xnp’goow] is the reading of SABDEL Lachm., 
Tisch., Tregelles. The Receptus has kypvgovow. The notion 
of possibility is denoted more strongly by the aorist subjunc- 
tive, than by the future indicative: ‘‘ How can they preach.” 
droctaAgow| namely, by Christ, by whose command they 
preach (ver. 17). yéyparra:| in Isa. lii. 7. The citation is 
given freely from the Septuagint. The original is a prophecy 
concerning the whole future of Messiah’s kingdom. This in- 
cludes all the temporal deliverances of God’s people; but these 
are only secondary to the spiritual deliverance. The return 
from the Babylonian exile, to which there may be a refer- 
ence, is only symbolical of something far greater, to which 


St. Paul here refers it. The messengers who announce the 
14* 


822 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


a , \ 4 
yerilouevov [eipyvnv, Tov evayyedfouevwor|] Ta ayadd. 
 GXN ov mavTes UTHKOVaaY TO evayyedio. ‘“Hoaias yap 

c 
, Lal > nm ¢€ lal 
reyes Kupre, Tis éwiatevoev TH akon Mov ; 


good news of the end of the earthly captivity, are typical of 
the gospel messengers. patot] timely, or seasonable (apa). 
Compare Eccl. iii. 11. As the essence of beauty is propor- 
tion and exact adjustment, the rendering of the English Ver- 
sion (“beautiful”) is correct. The words in brackets are 
wanting in SABC Sahid., Coptic, Aithiopic, Lachm., Tisch., 
Tregelles; and found in DEFL Vulgate, Peshito, Receptus. 
eipnvnv and ayada| denote the spiritual peace, and benefits of 
the gospel. 


Ver. 16 directs attention to the fact that notwithstanding 
there is this universal proclamation of the gospel, there is 
not a universal belief of the gospel. The apostle does not 
permit his reader to lose sight of man’s unbelief, and hard- 
ness of heart. “add’] “although messengers were sent to 
preach, yet,” etc. Compare v. 14. aavres|] refers to both 
Jews and Gentiles; because the prophet Isaiah, whom he 
cites, speaks of the gospel in relation to the entire world of 
mankind. The previous discussion of election and reprobation 
has likewise shown that there are believers and unbelievers 
among both Jews and Greeks. imyjxovoav] denotes willing 
subjection, and not merely the assent of the understanding. 
Compare vi. 17; 2 Thess. i. 8. The aorist is historical: they 
did not obey, during the preaching, i. e. (Alford). yap] in- 
troduces the proof from Isaiah liii. 1. St. John (xii. 38) 
quotes the same passage as descriptive of the reception which 
Christ’s preaching met with. In the complaint of the 
prophet concerning the unbelief of the Jews of his day, the 
apostle finds a prophesy of the unbelief of both Jews and 
Gentiles in the latter day. dxoj] that which is heard: the 


CHAPTER X. 1%. 323 


17 c 


dpa  wiotts é& axons, 4 5é axon dua pyyatos Xpu- 
oTOU. 


“message.” Yet, not the abstract message; but the message 
as preached and heard. 


Ver. 17 is a summary recapitulation, introduced by dpa 
(“accordingly ”), of what has been said in verses 14-16. 
The line of remark, in these verses, shows that saving faith 
depends upon the knowledge of gospel truth; and the uni- 
versal knowledge of this truth among mankind depends upon 
Christ’s appointment of a ministry to preach it. dons] not 
the act of hearing (Riickert, De Wette, Philippi), but the 
thing heard: the message as proclaimed, as in verse 16 (Tho- 
luck, Meyer, Hodge). The act itself of hearing, if it were 
believing hearing, would be the same as faith; and if it were 
unbelieving hearing, then faith could not be said to “come” 
by means of it. pyyatos Xpictod] is the reading of NBCDE 
Vulgate, Sahidic, Coptic, Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. The 
Receptus AL, Peshito, read Scot. 1. The “revelation” of 
Christ, in the subjective sense of the act of revealing. The 
gospel message (axon), as contained in both the Old and New 
Testaments, is the product of divine inspiration (Calvin, Tho- 
luck). 2. The “commission,” or command of Christ, Mat. 
xxviii. 19; Acts i. 8; Eph. iv. 8,11 (Beza, Meyer, Hodge). 
The last is preferable, particularly if Xpurrod be adopted as 
the reading. That fra has this signification, is seen in Luke 
iii. 2. It is also favored by the immediately preceding con- 
text, which has spoken of the sending and hearing of gospel 
messengers. ‘ Accordingly, then, faith cometh through the 
truth as preached; and the truth is preached by the command 
of Christ.” If Sot be adopted, there would be more reason 
for the first explanation of fyparos; and the meaning would 
be: “Faith cometh through the truth; and the truth by the 
inspiration of God.” 


324 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


® GANA A€yo, fy OK HKovoay ; wevodvye Eis wacay TH 
yay éEfrTev 0 PISyyos avTar, Kal eis TA TEpaTa THs oLKOV- 


Ver. 18 mentions a possible excuse for unbelieving men 
generally, viz., that some of them may have been excluded 
by God, like the heathen under the old economy, from hear- 
ing the gospel message, and gives the refutation of it. dda] 
“although faith cometh, etc., yet.” Compare ver. 16. Acyw] 
the Apostle himself suggests the excuse. jxoveay] se. TH 
dxoyv. The subject of the verb is not merely the Jews 
(Tholuck, Meyer, Philippi), but the Gentiles also (Calvin, 
Fritzsche, Hodge). See the explanation of wavres in verse 
16. pevodvye] not in irony, as in ix. 20, but in emphatic 
earnest. Jdyyos| is the vibration of a musical string. airév] 
refers to the preachers whe have been sent forth 8d pyaros 
Xpurod. The extract is from the Septuagint of Ps. xviii. 5 
(Eng. Ver., xix. 4). St. Paul accommodates a passage 
which refers originally to natural religion, to revealed religion. 
He does not introduce it by the usual formula, A€yer 4 ypady- 
mépata| the “frontiers.” fara aitdv] is the same thing that 
is denoted by dxoy 7yav in verse 16. St. Paul could say, in 
his day, that the gospel had had a universal proclamation, 
and ‘‘was preached to every creature which is under heaven” 
(Coloss. i. 23), in the same sense that the preacher of the 
present day can say it. The separating wall between Jew 
and Gentile had been broken down, Christianity was for the 
whole human race, and Christ’s pywa was: “Go preach to 
every creature.” If the fact that many nations and peoples 
had not actually heard the preacher’s voice, was a reason why 
he should refrain from saying that Christianity is the religion 
of universal man, it is a reason why the modern preacher 
should refrain from saying it. The Apostle replies to the 
suggestion, that unbelief may be excusable because some may 
be excluded by divine arrangements from hearing it, that the © 


CHAPTER X. 19. 3825 


péons Ta piyata aitav. “adra réyo, pi “Iopaijr ov 
éyvw ; mpatos Maiajs reyes Ey® trapatnioow tas én’ 


gospel is as wide and all-embracing as the race. Compare 
Coloss. i. 6. Calvin’s explanation is as follows: ‘ God from 
the beginning manifested his divinity to the Gentiles, though 
not by the preaching of men, yet by the testimony of crea- 
tion. For though the gospel was then silent among them, 
yet the whole workmanship of heaven and earth did speak, 
and make known its author by its preaching. It hence ap- 
pears, that the Lord, even during the time in which he con- 
ferred the favor of his covenant to Israel, did not yet so with- 
draw from the Gentiles the knowledge of himself, but that 
he ever kept alive some sparks of it among them. He indeed 
manifested himself more particularly to his chosen people, so 
that the Jews might be justly compared to domestic hearers, 
whom he familiarly taught as it were by his own mouth; yet 
as he spoke to the Gentiles at a distance by the voice of the 
heavens, he showed by this prelude that he designed to make 
himself known, at length, to them also.” 


Ver. 19 mentions a second possible excuse for the unbe- 
lieving Jews: viz., that they may have been ignorant of the 
fact that. the gospel was intended for the heathen, and find- 
ing that God was extending it to them might infer that he 
had revoked his previous covenant with Abraham and his 
seed. This excuse is refuted by Scripture citations, which 
show that the original promise to Abraham included “all the 
nations of the earth” (Gen. xxii. 18). dAAa] See comment 
on verse 18. Aé€yw] as in verse 18. “Iopai\] this alleged ex- 
cuse does not apply to men universally, but only to the Jews. 
éyvo| 1. “Did not the Jews know the gospel?” (Chrysost., 
Calvin, Beza, Philippi). 2. “Did not the Jews know that 
they were to be rejected?” The connection, in this case, is 


326 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


> 4 SES) SP: 3 lj a e la) 20? aA 
ovK édvet, er eIver adovvéT@ Trapopy.® bas. Heoaias 
5é amoTokua Kai réyer Evpédnv trois eué pur Sytodow, 


with the thought in verse 21 (Aquinas, Pareus, Rosenmiiller, 
Tholuck, Stuart, Hodge). 3. “ Did not the Jews know that 
the promise to Abraham was universal in its nature?” 
(Fritzsche, De Wette, Meyer, Alford). The last explana- 
tion is preferable, because it is closely connected with the 
immediately preceding and following citations from the Old 
Testament. mp@ros] Moses is first in the list of witnesses. 
A€yet] the quotation is from Deut. xxxii. 21, almost verbatim 
from the Septuagint. God threatened the Israelites, on 
account of their idolatry, that he would show favor to the 
Canaanites, and thereby excite their jealousy, as they, by 
their idolatry, had awakened his. St. Paul explains this as 
typical of the blessing of the Gentiles, and the displeasure 
of the Jews therewith. aapa¢yAwow] emulation is the general | 
conception in the word, as in xi. 11, 14 (Schleusner, in voce). 
This may assume the form of jealousy, as here, and in the 
passage in Deuteronomy; or of anger, as in 1 Cor. x. 22. 
ex | “over,” or “on account of.” ov« édve] py Xd: “a no- 
people.” See the explanation of od Aady, in ix. 25. Only 
God’s people come up to the idea of a people in the full 
sense. Compare 1 Pet. ii. 10. dovrérw] the folly of idolatry 
is meant. Compare i. 21, 22. 


Ver. 20. 6€] marks the transition to another witness, but 
with a somewhat adversative sense. There is a contrast be- 
tween Moses and Isaiah, in respect to the tone of the testimo- 
ny. amoroApa| is not adverbial, but has the force of a verb. “He 
dares to speak out, and tell the whole truth” (Theophylact). 
Compare xpae, in ix. 27. The quotation is given freely from 
the Septuagint of Isa. Ixy. 1. The parallel clauses are trans- 
posed. The original reference of the prophecy is to the Gen- 


CHAPTER X. 21. oan 


> \ > / A SiN \ ? a 21 A \ \ 
eudavns éyevouny tots éué yn errepwtaow. * mpos O€ Tov 
"Iopanr reyes” Odnv THY juépav eEerrévaca Tas xElpas pou 
mpos Naov airevtovvTa Kal avTLAeyovTa. 


tiles. The prophet announces, in verse 1, that God will say, 
“Behold me,” to “a nation not called by his name;” and in 
verse 2 gives the reason, viz.: the conduct of his “rebellious 
people.” The original reference of the first verse to the Jews 
themselves, and only its typical reference to the Gentiles, by 
St. Paul (Meyer and others), implies that Israel could prop- 
erly be described as a nation that had not been called by the 
name of Jehovah. See Alexander, in loco. 


Ver. 21. zpos] 1. “against:” adversus (Erasmus, Calvin, 
Beza, Grotius); 2. “to” (Vulgate, Luther, Riickert, Meyer); 
3. “in reference to” (Wolfius, Tholuck, De Wette, Fritzsche, 
Philippi). The last is best, because in the preceding verse 
Isaiah has spoken in reference to the Gentiles, and now 
speaks in another reference, which is marked by dé. é€eze- 
taga| the outstretched arms express the compassion and 
yearning appeal of God. Compare Prov. i. 24;, Ezek. xviii. 
31, 32; Hosea xi. 8. dmredotvra kat avtiAey2vta] the present 
participle denotes the constant mood and temper. The Jews 
did not merely oppose, but contradicted. In answer to the 
compassionate invitation of God, they said: “ We will not.” 
Meyer, in loco. Compare Mat. xxii. 37. 


CHAPTER XI. 


1 f 5 AUS eZ, € \ \ X ¢ ee ) 
Aéyw ovv, wn atacato 0 Jeds Tov Aaov avTOD; py 
yévoto* Kal yap éym “Iopnreitns cipl, éx oméppatos 


In this chapter, St. Paul first proves that the reprobation 
of the Jews, previously described, is not a total reprobation. 
God has elected and saved some of them; it is only a portion 
that he has passed by, or “hardened.” Verses 1-10, The 
Apostle, then, in the second place, shows that this reproba- 
tion is not a finality in and of itself. It is a means to an 
end, and a part of a benevolent plan. God does not repro- | 
bate some of the Jews for the mere sake of reprobating, but 
as instrumental to the salvation of the Gentiles. And when 
this end has been attained, then the Jews themselves as a 
body shall be brought into the church, and “all Israel shall 
be saved.” Verses 10-32. 


Ver. 1. A€yw ody] looks back, not to the statements in 
chapter x. respecting the calling of the Gentiles and the uni- 
versality of the gospel (Meyer and others), but to what the 
Apostle has said in chapter ix. concerning reprobation, and 
especially the reprobation of the Jews (Rom, ix. 6-33). The 
erroneous inference, introduced by otv, which he refutes, re- 
lates to the harsher and more offensive side of his dogmatic 
teaching. dmdécaro| signifies “to thrust out entirely:” an_ 
utter and total rejection, without any exceptions, is meant. 
Compare Ps. xciy. 13. The Apostle would not have what he 
has previously said respecting the reprobation of the Jews to ~ 


CHAPTER XI. 2. 329 


"ABaap, durqs Bevapelv. * ox amdécato o Seds Tov 
adv avTod dv Tpoéyvw. 1%) ovK oidate év “HXia Ti Néyes 


be so understood, as to imply the abrogation of the covenant 
formerly made with Abraham, and that the Jews were now 
entirely alienated from the kingdom of God. The reproba- 
tion spoken of is only of a portion of the people: ‘blindness 
in part is happened to Israel” (verse 25). éy®] Paul had 
been elected (Acts ix. 15), and this proves that the reproba- 
tion was not sweeping and total. “IcpayAeirys| a descendant 
of Jacob and not of Esau. Bevopeiy] this tribe together with 
Judah constituted the theocratic people, after the Exile. 
These particulars demonstrate that the apostle was thorough- 
ly and completely a Jew. Compare Phil. iti. 5. 


Ver. 2. Aadv| 1. The spiritual people, as in ix. 6; Gal. vi. 
16. (Origen, Aug., Chrys., Luther, Calvin, Pareus, Hodge). 
2. The theocratic people (De Wette, Tholuck, Meyer, Phi- 
lippi, Stuart, Lange, Alford). The last is preferable, be- 
cause this is the meaning of Aaov in verse 1, the sentiment of 
which St. Paul is refuting. He is speaking most commonly 
in this chapter, of the nation as a whole, out of which, he 
says, a part are spiritually elected, so that the nation as a 
whole are not rejected. It would be superfluous, to assert 
and endeavor to prove that the spiritual people of God are 
not “thrust out entirely.” poéyvw] is used in the Hebrew 
signification, ‘to elect,” as in viii. 29. The ‘‘ people” being 
the theocratic people, the election here meant is the outward 
call. St. Paul lays stress upon the fact of the external elec- 
tion of the nation, as a proof that there could not have been 
a spiritual reprobation of a// the individuals composing it. It 
is improbable, that having given to the Jews the Mosaic law, 
moral and ceremonial, together with the Levitical priesthood, 
and the divine oracles, God would not effectually call any of 


3830 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS, 


1) ypapn ; ; ds evtuyydver TO Jed Kata Tov Iopanr, * Kv- 
ple, TOUS mpogprras cov amWéeKTEWaV, TA Sua aou 
KaTéckawar, ae brrehelpdy HOvOS, Kat Gavotow THD 
Puy pete * Gna TL eyes AUTO 0 Xpmmar oo pos § ; Karé- 
ALTrOV e€“avTo ETTAKLOXLMOUS . évSpas, oltuves ovK Exaparpav 


them. The outward call, in such a case, would be inexplica- 
ble. #] “or,” in case you are not convinced by this. év “Hiig] 
in the section, or narrative, relating to Elijah. Compare 
Mark xii. 26.  évrvyxévet] signifies to plead either for or 
against; the preposition xara shows that the latter is intended 
here: viz.: “to complain of.” 


Ver. 3. The passage is freely cited from the Septuagint 
rendering of 1 Kings xix. 10, 14. dzéxreway] namely, the 
Israelites by the command of Ahab and Jezebel, 1 Kings 
xviii. 4, 13,17. SIvovacrnpic] the plural is explained by the 
fact, that after the revolt from Judah, the ten tribes could 
not go up to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice, and consequently 
erected altars for this purpose. This had been forbidden 
(Lev. xvii. 8, 9; Deut. xii. 13); but when a central and ap- 
pointed place of sacrifice could not be had, altars upon “high 
places ” were permitted to pious worshippers, 1 Kings iii, 2— 
4. xarécxapav] “to raze from the ground.” dvos| sc. Tov 
mpopyTwv. 


Ver. 4. ypnuaticpos| the divine response to the complaint. 
Compare Mat. ii. 12. It is found in 1 Kings xix. 18, and 
varies slightly from both the Septuagint and Hebrew. xare- 
Aurov éuav7d] “I have reserved for myself.” érraxurxtAiovs | 
“Though this stands for an indefinite number, it was yet the 
Lord’s design to specify a large multitude. Since, then, the 
grace of God prevails so much in an extreme state of things, 
let us not lightly give over to the devil all those whose piety - 


CHAPTER XI. 5, 6. 331 


la A 4 5 ee iol \ > A fol A A 
youu T7 Bdad. * odtws ody Kal év TO viv KaIlpO Aeimwa 
Kart éKkhoyiy yapitos yéyovev: ° ei Sé yapuTL, ovKéTe €& 


does not openly appear to us” (Calvin in loco). tf Baad] 
da = lord or ruler: a Phenician deity, identical with the 
Chaldean Bel, or Belus. It was the male generative princi- 
ple, symbolized by the sun; with which was associated the 
female generative principle, symbolized by Ashtoreth, or the 
Grecian Astarte. The use of the feminine article is ex- 
plained: 1. by supposing that Astarte is included, and that 
Baal is thus androgynous (Reiche, Olshausen, Philippi). 2. 
by contempt (Gesenius, Tholuck). 3. to agree with eixon, 
understood (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Bengel). The Septua- 
gint in this place reads tw; but uses the feminine article in 
1 Sam. vii. 4; Hosea 1. 8; Zeph. i. 4. The Apocrypha also 
employs the feminine. 


Ver. 5. St. Paul applies the election in Elijah’s day to the 
election under the gospel-dispensation. _ ovrws] in conformity 
with this occurrence in Elijah’s time. Actua] corresponds 
to xatéirwv, and is identical with troAcppa in ix. 27. xaprtos| 
is the genitive of source. Respecting the fact itself, it is 
said in Acts xxi. 20, that there were ‘“‘tens of thousands of 
believing Jews.” Compare iii. 3; xi. 17, where “some” 
(rwes) are spoken of as unbelieving, implying that others 
were believers. This “ remnant” sustains the same relation 
to the “people” spoken of in verses 1 and 2, that “IopanA 
does to of e "Iopax\, in ix. 6; and the “children of God” to 
the “children of the flesh,” in ix. 8. The fact that in Eli- 
jah’s time, and in the Apostle’s time, God called with his 
effectual calling, a multitude from out of that larger body 
whom he had called only with the outward calling, proved 
that God had not totally reprobated the Jewish people. 


Ver. 6 is explanatory. St. Paul, again, as he had previ- 


3832 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


4 bJ ‘ e 4 > f / / > Ac '3 BA 
épywv, eel 1 yapus ovKéTe yiverar ydpus [ec de €& Epywn, 
ovnéTe éeotl yapis, érel TO Epyov ovKéTL eotW épyor|: 
Vp) (Pamic! a a> , a > i, e \ 
Ti owv ; 0 éme€ntet “Icpanr, TodtTo ovK émétvyev, 9 Oé 


ously done in ix. 11, 16, takes particular pains to show that 
this election is not founded upon man’s prior obedience, as 
the reason and cause of it. The natural heart is legal, and 
desires to merit salvation. Hence, the necessity of reiter- 
ating, that man does not earn and merit the electing com- 
passion of God, by works of his own. xapure] se. Aciupa 
yéyovev. epywv| denotes perfect works: sinless obedience, such 
as the law requires. See explanation of iv. 4. ovkér] se. 
yéyovev. yiverat| is used instead of éort, because an alteration 
is meant: éore would denote the intrinsic nature of a thing, 
which is unchangeable. If this election were upon the 
ground of obedience, then mercy would be converted into 
justice: “gratia nisi gratis sit, gratia non est.” (Aug.). 
The clause in brackets is wanting in NACDE Sahid., Copt., 
Vulg., Erasmus, Griesbach, Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. It is 
supported by BL Peshito, Receptus. 


Ver. 7. tif ovv] sc. epotpev: a deduction from verses 2-6. 
The thought is similar to that in ix. 30, 31. émfyre| is like 
duwxwv, in ix. 81. The preposition is intensive, and the pres- 
ent tense denotes continuous effort. The Jewish people as a 
nation (Iopa7A) labored in a legal manner to obtain eternal 
life, and failed. ékAoyy] is that part of the Jewish people, 
designated as Actua, who sought after eternal life by faith 
in the promised Messiah. But this faith itself was the gift 
of God (Eph. ii. 8). ézérvxev] commonly takes the geni- 
tive (the Receptus reads rovrov); but may be followed by the 
accusative. Compare Plato’s Republic, iv. 431 ¢. Aouroi] the 
remainder of the Jews: the rwes of iii. 3; xi. 17.  erwpaody- 

, gav] is derived from zépos. the osseous cement formed in a 


CHAPTER XI. 8. 3803 


exroyn emétuyev* of Sé AovTrol érwpodInoav, * KaJddTrep 
yéyparta, "Edwxev avtois 0 eds mvetpa Katavutews, 
opJarpm20s TOD pu PrErrELY Kai WTA TOV fn aKOvELY, Ews — 
broken bone. Hence, ‘‘to become callous;” as in Mark. vi. 
52; viii. 17; John xii. 40. This word, in the Septuagint of 
Job xvii. 7%, is translated in the English Version by, “ be- 
came dim ;” and in 2 Cor. iii. 14 by, “‘ were blinded,” as it is _ 
also in this passage. As St. Paul, in ix. 18, has described 
reprobation by oxAypive, this would be a reason for adopt- 
ing the etymological rendering. But the succeeding ex- 
planation of the term, in verse 8, favors the second signifi- 
cation. The word relates to both the understanding and 
the will. For the relation of the human to the divine agen- 
cy, in the case, see the explanation of oxAnpvve, in ix. 18. 
Calvin’s explanation (in loco) is one of the few passages in 
his writings which subject him to the charge of supra-lapsa- 
rianism. 


Ver. 8 contains a proof from the Old Testament: the cita- 
tion is a combination of Deut. xxix. 4 with Isa. xxix. 10, 
freely according to the Sept. édwxey| denotes not only per- 
mission, but the punitive withdrawal of restraints. See 
explanation of zapédwxev, in i. 24.  Katavigews] “ stupefac- * 
tion.” Religious apathy and lethargy show that God has 
ceased to strive with the man, and has left him to himself. 
Compare Eph. iv. 19. This word, in the Septuagint, some- 
times has the signification of exasperation: an angry and 
embittered spirit. Luther and Calvin give it this meaning. 
Tov py PA€rew| 1. the descriptive genitive: “eyes of not see- 
ing,” i. e., that do not see (Grotius, Fritzsche, Philippi). 2. 
the genitive of purpose (Meyer). The latter agrees best 
with édwxev. €ws THs, etc.| is best connected with édwxev, as a 
part of the quotation. 


3884 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


THs onwepov Huépas. ° Kal Aaveld réyer Tevndjt@ 4 tpd- 
mela avTav eis Tayida Kal eis Inpav kal eis cKavdadov 

\ > > , > a 10 4 Ce) \ 
Kai eis avTaTrodopa avtots, ** cxoTicdnTwaav of dpIarpol 
avTav Tov wn BA€éTEW, Kal TOV VOTOV avToV SiaTravTOS 


ovyKaprpov. 


VeR. 9 gives another proof, from Ps. lxix. 22, 23, that a 
part of the Jewish people had been judicially blinded. The 
citation varies somewhat from the Septuagint. The psalm 
is Messianic, as is proved by comparing verses 9 and 21 with 
John 11. 17; Mat. xxvii. 34, 48; John xix. 29, 30. What 
David said concerning the enemies of the Messiah, or the 
unbelieving Jews, in his time, is applicable to them in all 
time. -yevyIy7w] In the Hebrew, the future is employed, 
which the Septuagint renders by the imperative. Some 
regard it as the intensive future, so that there is a prophecy 
that these things shall certainly happen to the enemies of 
Christ. But it may be taken as an imprecation, uttered by 
David speaking as the inspired organ of God. The Supreme 
Judge can authorize a prophet to pronounce his punitive 
judgment for him, as he can a human magistrate to inflict 
punitive justice for him (xiii. 4). tpaze€a] is put for earthly 
enjoyments: while they are eating and drinking, in fancied 
security. mayida] the snare by which the wild beast is 
caught. Jypav] the quarry, or heap of game: this is neither 
in the Hebrew nor the Septuagint, but an addition by the 
apostle. oxdvdadov] is the Septuagint word for the classical 
oxavdadyIpor, or stick to which the bait is tied, in a trap. 


Ver. 10. varov, etc.] The Hebrewis, “make their loins 
continually to shake.” St. Paul follows the Septuagint ver- 
sion. ovyxayipov| God is the agent. The reference is not to 
Roman slavery, but to spiritual. These citations from the 
Old Testament prove that the spiritual rejection of a por- 


CHAPTER XI. 11. 3805 


4 ‘) 
1 Aéya odv, un) ertacay va twéowow; ph) Yyévo.TO® 
U] 
an lal Cal v 
GANG TO AUTOV TapaTTeMaTL 7) CwTNPLa ToIs EIvEcLD, ELS 
c | >] 


tion of the Jewish nation was known and foretold, from the 
beginning of Jewish history. 


Ver. 11 begins a new paragraph, in which the apostle 
mentions a reason for the reprobation of a part of the Jews. 
ovv| in reference to the “ blinding,” just proved by Scripture 
citations. Compare verse 1. érrawav| the subject is the 
Aol, of verse 7, who do not belong to the “election.” 
Compare James ii. 10; iii. 2; 2 Pet. i, 10. méswow] is em- 
phatic: “‘did they stumble merely that they might fall?” 
Had God no end to accomplish by this reprobation? za- 
partdépatt] the dative of the means: here, the occasional 
cause. The connection is with émracav. This word invaria- 
bly denotes a culpable and punishable act (Rom. v. 15-18; 
Mat. vi. 14). Hence, reprobation is consistent with the doc- 
trine of personal responsibility and guilt. The “fall” of the 
unbeliever is also the “transgression” of the unbeliever. 
awrnpia| se. yéyovev. As actual instances, in which the rejec- 
tion of the gospel by the Jews led to its acceptance by the 
Gentiles, see Acts xiii, 43-49; xxiii. 28. The same thing is 
foretold, in Isa. xlix. 4-6; Mat. xxi. 43. The rejection of 
the gospel by the Jews facilitated its progress in the Gentile 
world, in the following manner: 1. The opposition of the 
Jews to the preaching of the doctrine of the Messiah to the 
Gentiles, made the apostles more determined and earnest, to 
do so. See 1 Thess. ii. 14-16. 2. The Jewish-Christians 
attempted to force the ceremonial law upon the Gentile- 
Christians, and this resulted in a more spiritual understanding 
and universal spread of the Christian religion. Had the Jew- 
ish Christians been more numerous in the Primitive Church, 
the ceremonial law might have been a “heavy yoke,” for a 


7 


836 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


\ a > , Ta: \ \ , 2 A 
TO TapatmrAwoal avToUs. et 5€ TO TapadTToOpLa avTaV 
TAOVTOS KOTMOV KAL TO HTTHUA AVT@V TOUTOS EIVOV, TOTM 
uarXov TO TANPwWma aUT@V. ** buiy be Aéyw Tols EIvEerw. 
oh eed \ S Dee aN pb] \ b] la 2 , \ ‘ 
ef dcov pev ovv eiul eyw EIV@V aTroaTONOS, THY StaKoviav 

/ 14 v f \ / x 
wou do€alw, “ eiws Tapalnlocw pov THY odapKa Kal 


longer time than it was (Acts xv. 10). «is 76] is telic. The 
attainment of the providential design is reserved for the 
future. The Jews, as yet, have not been beneficially af- 
fected by the evangelizing of the Gentile. They still stand 
in a hostile attitude to Christianity. mapa€yAdcat| to waken, 
not “jealousy” (Eng. Ver.) but, ‘‘ emulation.” 


Ver. 12. 5é] is transitive: “now.” zdAodros] se. yéyove. 
Y&y' 


The Gentile world is enriched, indirectly, by the falling away 
of the Jews. 7rrqjya] is not classical, but found in the Sept., 
Isa. xxxi. 8; 1 Cor. vi. 7: not “minority,” referring to the small 
number of Jewish believers (Chrysost., Theod., Erasmus, 
Beza, Bengel, Olsh.); but ‘ diminution,” or loss (impoverish- 
ment): the equivalent of dzofod) in verse 15. (De Wette, 
Meyer, Hodge). zAjpwya] not “majority,” antithetic to 
“minority;” but “gain,” antithetic to “diminution,” or 
loss. If the rejection of the Jews has proved to be such a 
blessing to the Gentiles, then much more their future restor- 
ation will be a blessing to them, airay] sc. mAodros édvav 
yevnoetar: subjective genitive, as in the two previous in- 
stances: “their fall,” and, “their loss,” and “their gain.” 


Ver. 13, and 14, guard the Gentiles against a false infer- 
ence from the foregoing, viz.: that the apostle felt no interest 
in the Jews. ép dcov| not temporal, quamdiu, Mat. ix. 15; 
but quatenus, “in so far as,” Mat. xxv. 40. ev] the correla- 
tive 5 is not expressed, but implied: “I magnify my office, 
indeed, but I wish to stimulate my brethren.” (Meyer). 
Soéifw] “I praise,” i.e. highly estimate. eimws] “if so be 


CHAPTER XI. 15, 16. San 


coow Twas €£ aiTav. “ ei yap 7 aToBoAn) adTav KaTad- 


\ / / e he > \ \ > an 
Nay) Kdopmov, Tis 7 TpocdrAnYis ef pn Cor ex vexpav ; 
* et O€ 1) aTTapy) ayia, Kal TO pvpawa: Kal et H pita 


that:” he is not absolutely certain, yet is hopeful that the 
more he urged the evangelization of the Gentile, the more 
he should savingly benefit the Jews. oapxa] the equivalent 
of oéppa “ABpadp, in ix. 7. 


Ver. 15 is a conclusion from verses 13, 14, similar to that 
in verse 12 from verse 11. doBody| the ‘ rejection” of the 
Jew, spoken of in 1x. 27, 29; x. 21; xi. 7. «aradAAayy| the 
heathen, through faith in Christ, are reconciled to God, v. 11. 
The Jewish reprobation is the occasional cause of the Gentile 
reconciliation. mpdcAnWus]| is the contrary of droBody: spirit- 
ual election and effectual calling is meant. wi é« vexpav] 
Compare vi. 13; Luke xv. 24. Not the resurrection of the 
body, which is to follow the conversion of the Jews, and the 
bringing in of the fulness of the Gentiles (Origen, Theodoret, 
Chrysost., Anselm, De Wette, Tholuck, Meyer); but spirit- 
ual life, and all the blessings of redemption (Calvin, Bengel, 
Philippi, Hodge). The argument is this: If the reprobation 
of the Jews, who as the outwardly called might naturally 
have been expected to be the inwardly called, results in such 
a blessing to the heathen world, then certainly the inward 
call itself must result in the greatest possible blessing to the 
Jews themselves, 


Ver. 16. 82] is transitive, introducing a reason for expect- 
ing the zpdécAnus of the Jew: namely, that the Jews were the 
chosen people of God. dapyy]| sc. dupaparos. The allusion 
is to the offering of the first fruits of the earth: not gener- 
ally, however, of grain, grapes, etc., but of kneaded meal, or 
dough, Numb. xv. 19-21. The “first fruits” represent: 1. 
the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in distinction 


338 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


from the rest of the people, 76 ¢vpaya (Greek Fathers, 
Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Tholuck, Olshausen, De Wette, 
Meyer, Philippi, Hodge). 2. the elect Jews: “if some were 
elected, the rest may be” (Ambrose, Anselm, Rosenmiiller). 
The first is the true explanation, as verse 28 shows. ayia] 
not in the spiritual sense of holy, but of consecration, or out- 
ward separation to the service of God. Compare Mat. iv. 5; 
vil. 6; Luke i. 23; 1 Cor. vii. 14. piga and xAddor] are only 
another figure for the same things represented by the “first 
fruits” and the “lump.” The Jewish patriarchs and their 
descendants all stood in the same covenant relation to God, 
as the chosen people (Deut. vii. 8, 9; Luke i. 55). The 
restoration of the Jews, and their admission into the Christian 
Church, is to be anticipated because of this original relation, 
The fact of the external call justifies the expectation of the 
internal. Not that the former is the ground of the latter, 
or that the latter necessarily and in every single instance 
follows from the former. Spiritual election does not rest 
upon the fact that the individual has the outward means of 
grace, any more than upon his works or personal merit; but 
solely upon the decision of God (ix. 15, 16). Nevertheless, 
the fact of the outward call is a valid reason for expecting, 
and hoping for the inward call. This expectation may not be 
realized invariably. . It was not in the case of the Jews, some 
of whom were passed by, in the bestowment of saving grace, 
and continued in unbelief. God has liberty and sovereignty, 
in respect to regenerating grace, yet the general economy of 
redemption warrants the belief that he will follow the out- 
ward call with the inward; and that those who are externally 
“holy,” shall be made spiritually so. In regard to electing 
grace, as connected with the outward call and the use of 
means, the individual must not insist upon absolute certain- 
ty beforehand, but must proceed upon the ground of strong - 
probability, as does the farmer in the sowing of grain, 


CHAPTER XI. 17%. 3839 


dyia, Kal oi KXddov. ™ et O€ TWEs TOV KrddwV éLeKAdTIy- 

cay, od O€ aypliédatos Ov évexevTpicIns év avTots Kal 
a na an / 

cuvKowwVos THs pigys Kal THs TLOTHTOS THs éNalas éyévou, 


Verses 17-20 warn the Gentile-Christians against self- 
exaltation because they have been elected, while Jews have 
been rejected. wes] not all, but only a fraction of the en- 
tire number of the Jews. Compare iii. 3; xi. 25. od] the 
Gentile-Christian. dypuéAavos] is used here as an adjective, 
to denote the species: an entire tree is never grafted in. In 
verse 24, the word is used as a noun. €éy atrois| 1. “in,” or 
“upon them”: taking their place. (Beza, De Wette, Olsh.) 
2. “among them” (Grotius, Fritzsche, Philippi, Meyer). 
The first is preferable, because of the subsequent warning 
against boasting over the branches that had been broken off. 
There is no need to press the comparison, and explain by the 
custom of grafting the wild-olive (oleaster) into the culti- 
vated, for the purpose of strengthening the latter. “It 
often happens that though the olive trees thrive well, yet 
they bear no fruit. These should be bored with an auger, 
and a green graft or slip of a wild olive-tree be put into the 
hole; thus, the tree being as it were impregnated with fruit- 
ful seed, becomes more fertile.” (Columella, de Re Rustica, 
v.10.) Only the general figure of grafting is to be consid- 
ered. As a graft shares in the qualities of the stock, so the 
Gentiles, who were wild-olive by nature (verse 24); that is, 
were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers 
from the covenants of promise (Eph. ii. 12); obtained a part 
in the blessings of the gospel and the church. The Jews 
were the channel of good to the Gentiles, as the olive-tree is 
to the graft. filys cal midtyT0s] the Gentiles partook of the 
root and fatness of the olive-tree, when they entered into a 
spiritual participation of the blessings of the Abrahamic 
covenant. 


, 
- 


3840 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


18 ‘\ Lal oa me 10 5 > be A > \ 
pe) KaTaKkavy® Tov Krddov: ei Sé KaTaKavyadoat, od od 
tiv pitay Bactaters Gr 1) pila oé. ™ épeis ovv’ HEeKAdo- 
/ (vA ? \ > lal 20 lal A 2 la 
Inoav Krabo1 va eyo evKevTpicdO. KaN@S* TH aTLoTia 
2) / \ \ a / wa \ e \ / 
é£exddadnoav, ov 6€ TH miater EatynKas. wy tynra ppovet, 


Ver. 18. xataxavx] ‘to assert superiority over.” Com- 
pare James ii. 13; ili. 14. «Addwv| not the Jewish people as 
a whole (Meyer), but the branches broken off (Chrys., Erasm., 
De Wette). «i dé] “but if, as thou shouldest not.” pia] se. 
Baordfer: ‘‘ thou, too, art only a branch ;” a branch is not 
self-sustaining. Compare John xv. 4. 


Ver. 19. otv] with reference to the reason, given in verse 
18, for not boasting. «Addo] is anarthrous, to denote some 
branches, not all. éyw] is emphatic, implying a proud self- 
reliance. 


Vir. 20. xadds] se. épets: the fact is conceded, but not the 
inference drawn from it. dmoria| the dative of the reason: 
“on account of,” Gal. vi. 12. Unbelief was the reason of 
this rejection of a part of the Jews. Not that there was a 
greater degree of unbelief in their case, than in that of those 
Jews who were elected. This may or may not have been the 
fact. But there was unbelief, because there was sin, in the 
heart of these persons, and God decided not to overcome it. 
See comment on ix. 18,33. 74 micrec| trust in Christ’s vicari- 
ous righteousness is the method by which the elect stand, 
both before the bar of God and in the path of duty. €oryKxas] 
the perfect signification is to be emphasized: ‘thou hast 
stood, up to this time.” To “stand,” is the contrary of that 
apostasy which is figuratively described by e&exAaoInoav, and 
literally by weoovras in verse 22. The two terms, ‘standing ” 
and “falling,” are found together in xiv. 4. tyyrd& dpdver} 
(SAB Lachm., Tisch.) denotes the same self-sufficient feeiing 


CHAPTER XI. 21. 341 


Gra hoBod: ™ ei yap 6 Jeds TAY KaTa dvow Krddov odK 
éfeicato, [ujmws| ovde cod detoeTat. 


expressed in the ey of verse 18. Compare xii. 16. ofod] 
signifies the contrary feeling: viz.: self-distrust and reliance 
upon another. The apostle teaches that there is no security 
for the Gentile, any more than for the Jew, but in humility 
and trust in Christ. Unbelief and self-righteousness, in 
either instance, result in perdition. 


Ver. 21 contains a reason why these Gentiles who had 
been grafted in, should not presume upon their spiritual 
election, and “be wise in their own conceits” (ver. 25). If 
they vaingloriously trusted in their election, as the Jews had 
in their theocratic privileges, they would meet with the same 
treatment with the Jews. «ara vow] natural, and not 
grafted branches (ver. 17). Christ (Mat. viii. 12) affirms 
that some of ‘the children of the kingdom shall be cast out 
into outer darkness.” There was more probability of a di- 
vine indulgence toward the original covenant people, than 
toward the heathen. But there had been no such indulgence 
toward the Jews, and of course there would not be with the 
Gentiles. pus] is omitted in NABC Lachm., Tisch., Tre- 
gelles. o¥d¢ cod deicerar| the hypothesis, here, of the casting 
off of the elect Gentile by God who has elected him, does not 
prove that such an event will actually occur. The children 
of God are warned against apostasy, as one of the means of 
preventing apostasy. The holy and filial fear of falling is 
one of the means of not falling. He who has no such fear, 
because he presumes upon his election, will fall. Hence the 
promise, “I will put my fear in their hearts, in order that 
they may not depart from me” (Jer. xxxii. 40). Augustine 
explains: “in order that they may persevere.” Though the 
perseverance of the believer is a certainty for God, yet it is 


342 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


22 "sS 5 r a ’ A 9 epee: Bits) \ 
(oe OY YPNOTOTHTA Kal aTroTOMiay TOU Jeod* él pev 
Tovs mTecovTas amroTomia, él Sé o€ ypnoToTNs JeEeov, Eav 
nr , , 
CTLLevNS TH XPNTTOTHTL* ETEL KAL OV ExKOTTNCN. 


not so for the believer himself, unless he has the assurance of 
faith. Past failures in duty, much remaining corruption, 
and strong temptations to sin, cause him to feel very uncer- 
tain respecting his good estate. He is more fearful some- 
times, that he shall be lost, than he is certain that he shall 
be saved. He may therefore, consistently, be warned against 
self-deception and apostasy. Compare Heb. vi. 4-9; John 
xv. 6. “By such threatenings, God does not render the sal- 
vation of believers a matter of doubt, as though the elect 
were in danger of excision (for the apostle immediately as- 
serts that the gifts of God are without repentance; and 
Christ affirms that it is impossible that the elect should per- 
ish), but he applies incitements, that he may keep them in 
duty, and from sin. These threatenings, moreover, are ad- 
dressed to the visible church as a body. Some members of 
this body are false membezs. The threat of excision is there- 
fore proper and necessary for the church as a whole, although 
it would not apply to those who are true members. Neither 
would it be proper to infer that a true member may fall from 
grace, because the whole visible body is warned against apos- 
tasy. The seven churches of Asia were cut off for unbelief, 
but it does not follow that the true members in those 
churches were cut off” (Pareus, in loco). 


VeER. 22 is a deduction, more immediately from verses 17 
and 21, and more remotely, from the whole course of reason- 
ing respecting election and reprobation. The rejection of 
some (twes) of the Jews, and the election of some (od) of the 
Gentiles, is an impressive example of the divine justice and 
mercy. xpyordryTa| the divine compassion. See comment 


CHAPTER XI. 22. 3843 


on ii. 4. dzorouiav] is found only here in the New Testa- 
ment. It signifies severe and exact justice: the opposite of 
compassion. It has already been alluded to in ovvrepvay, ix. 
28. When God refrains from manifesting mercy, he mani- 
fests justice; because he must do one thing or the other. 
He is holy and just when he leaves the sinful will to its self- 
determination, and punishes it for its self-determination, 
To complain of justice, or “to reply against God” on ac- 
count of it (ix. 20), is both a moral and a logical absurdity. 
meodvras| the reprobated Jews (xi. 11); the branches broken 
off for unbelief (ver. 20). doropia] sc. éorw. The nomina- 
tive is supported by SABC Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles; the 
accusative, by DL Receptus. xpyordrns Jeod| sc. €or. This 
is the reading of NABCD Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. éav 
erpevyns TH XpyoTOTHTL] to “‘continue in the divine goodness,” 
is to continue to trust in it: to continue in faith. After 
regeneration, the human will co-operates with the Holy 
Spirit, and growth in grace is conditioned upon fidelity upon 
the part of the believer. He must work out his own salva- 
tion in connection with God, who also works in him to will 
and to do (Phil. ii. 12,18). Hence the exhortation of Christ 
to the believer, “Abide in me, and I will abide in you” 
(John xy. 4); and the warning, ‘‘If a man abide not in me 
he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered.” (John xv. 6). 
The same truth is taught, here, by St. Paul. The divine 
compassion will continue to be exercised towards the be- 
liever, if he continues to rely upon it. Compare Coloss, 1. 23. 
But if he deserts the method of grace, and relies’ upon his 
own works and personal merit, divine justice will take the 
place of compassion, and there will be, in his case as in that 
of the Jew, rejection instead of election: “thou also shalt be 
cut off.” The case is a hypothetical one, like that in verse 
21, for the purpose of illustrating the doctrine of salvation 
by faith, and does not necessarily imply actuality. Whether, 


344 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


_ in fact, an elect person ever fails to “continue in God’s com- 
passion,” and is “cut off” by his justice, must be decided by 
the teachings of Scripture upon this particular point. They 
are explicit in the negative. See John x. 28, 29; xvii. 12; 
xvi. 9; Rom. xi. 29; Phil. i.6; Heb. vi. 9; 1 Pet. i 5: Jude 
24, Anti-predestinarian exegetes find in these hypotheti- 
cal propositions respecting “continuing,” and “being cut 
off,” an argument against predestination and irresistible 
grace, and a proof of the defectibility of grace, and of the 
repetition of conversion (Meyer, in loco), But they con- 
found the development of holiness with the origin of it; 
progressive sanctification with regeneration. The first alone 
is made to depend upon the co-operation of the believer. 
The last depends solely upon the divine will, and is uncon- 
ditioned by the creature. ‘‘ We understand now,” says Cal- 
vin in loco, “in what sense Paul threatens those with excision 
whom he has already asserted to have been grafted into the 
hope of life through God’s election. For, first, though this 
cannot happen to the elect, they have yet need of such warn- 
ing, in order to subdue the pride of the flesh; which being 
strongly opposed to their salvation, needs to be terrified with 
the dread of perdition. As far, then, as Christians are illu- 
minated by faith, they hear, for their assurance, that the 
calling of God is without repentance; but as far as they 
carry about them the flesh which wantonly resists the grace 
of God, they are taught humility by this warning, ‘Take 
heed lest thou too be cut off.?” Another explanation of 
these passages, is to refer them to the Gentile world asa 
whole; and the meaning then is, that if any portion of the 
Gentiles do not believe in Christ, they will be rejected, as 
the unbelieving Jews have been (Hodge). 


Ver. 23 contains an hypothesis of the opposite kind, in- 
troduced by oe, viz.: that if the reprobated Jew should not 


CHAPTER XI. 23. 3845 


° kaxetvor Oé, €av pi) eTluévwowv TH amTLoTia, EVvKEVTpLC- 
Jyoovtar: Suvatos yap éoTw Oo eos Tadw évKevTpioas 


persist in unbelief, but should exercise faith in Christ, he 
would be saved. This also, like the preceding supposition, 
is introduced for the purpose of illustrating by an extreme 
example the truth which St. Paul is so desirous of impressing, 
that salvation is by faith in Christ, and not by the works of 
the law. There is nothing that would prevent the salvation 
even of a reprobate, provided he should believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ. Trust in atoning blood is all-prevalent with 
God; so much so, that if we could suppose it to come into 
existence by the action of the non-elect himself, it would 
save him. That such a case does not occur, and cannot from 
the nature of sin and the human will, is proved by those 
numerous passages which teach the self-originated bondage 
of the sinner, and that faith is the gift of God. A similar 
example of the supposition of something that is neither actual 
nor possible, for the purpose of vividly and strongly illustrat- 
ing the subject under discussion, is found in 1 Cor. xiii. 1-3. 
Here, the extreme supposition is made that there is Christian 
faith without Christian love. «dxetvor] “even those” natural 
branches which God ‘broke off” (verse 20), and “did not 
spare” (verse 21): the same as the wecovras (ver. 22). éav pry 
eryrevwow, etc.| corresponds to éay émimévys, etc. (ver. 22). 
Should the reprobated come to have the same spirit with the 
elected, he would obtain the same blessing with him: he 
would be “ grafted in.” dvvards] God is able to graft them 
in again. St. Paul does not say that the non-elect are able 
to graft themselves in again. He who rejected them, could 
still elect them, if he so pleased. zadw]| not a second time 
in reference to the inward, but to the outward call. This 
non-elect Jew belonged to the chosen people. The outward 


call, in his case, was followed by the internal reprobation, 
15* 


846 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


> TA 24 ? \ Fi ie] \ y ’ , > 
QUTOUS. €l yap ov Ek THS KATA pvow eFEKOTNS aryptehatou 
\ \ , =) [3 ? lé € lal 
Ka! Tapa puow EVEKEVT PLOINS els KaNALENALOY, OTH [aN- 
e € \ ie > Ve A D7 > / 
Rov ovToL ol KaTa pucLY EVKEVT PLoS TOVTAL ™) ova ead. 
* Ov yap Séko tyuas ayvoeiv, ddedpol, TO puoTHpLOY 


Hence, if God (who is “able” to do this) should reverse his 
rejection, and spiritually elect him, this would be a second 
grafting in: the first ingrafting having been only the theo- 
cratic election. The apostle does not suppose the loss of re- 
generating grace, and a second bestowment of it. 


Ver. 24. yap] connects with kdketvou éveevtpisIjoovrat, and 
introduces a reason for the preceding statement respecting 
re-engrafting. ot] the Gentile-Christian. xara diow] quali- 
fies dypuehaiov, and denotes the original nature and qualities 
of the tree. apa dicw] grafting modifies the natural devel- 
opment of a branch, and is, in so far, contrary to nature. 
kaA\eowov| is anarthrous, to denote the species. oi Kara 
dicw] sc. dvtes. Fritzsche reads ot, making it a relative. 
idia | the spiritual election of a member of the theocracy is 
more natural and probable, on the face of it, than that of a 
pagan; as olive upon olive, is more homogeneous than oleas- 
ter upon olive. 


Ver. 25. St. Paul passes now to a prediction concerning 
the future of the Church, as composed both of Jews and 
Gentiles. Verses 25-32 constitute one of the most important 
prophecies in the New Testament. ydp]| is connective only: 
equivalent to etenim (Winer, 448). od Jw dyvwety| a h- 
totes, employed to direct special attention (Rom. i. 13; 1 Cor, 
x. 1; xii. 1; 2 Cor. i. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 13). ituas] you Gen- 
tile-Christians. jzvorypiov] not in the pagan sense of an 
esoteric doctrine known only to the initiated, but in the 
Christian sense of a doctrine that requires a divine revela- 
tion in order to be known. Compare Rom. xvi®5; 1 Cor. © 


CHAPTER XI. 25. 347 


lal leg A 5 , e cal f iid , > x 

TOUTO, iva pur) TE ev EavTois Hpdovysor, OTL Twpwots amo 
a & , La] fal 

Hépous TS “Icpair yéyovev, dypis 0b TO TANPOpA TaV Edvev 


li. 7-10; xv. 51; Eph. iii. 4,5. The divine purpose respect- 
ing the future evangelization and salvation of the Jewish 
people and the heathen world, must be divulged by God 
himself. é éavrots] is the reading of AB Peshito, Recep., 
Lachm., Tregelles: zap’ éavrots is supported by NCDL Tisch. 
Compare xii. 16. If the latter be adopted, the sense is: 
“before yourselves” (as judges), i. e.: in your own estima- 
tion (Winer, 395).  ¢pdviyzoc] denotes false wisdom, as in 
Rom. xii. 16; 1 Cor. iv. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 19; and this is accom- 
panied with pride. The apostle is still warning the Gentile 
Christian against the self-righteous spirit spoken of in verses 
18-21. adépwois| See comment on xi. 7. dd pépovs] does 
not qualify zwpwors (to denote a partial in distinction from a 
total hardening: Calvin); but yéyovery (De Wette, Meyer, 
Hodge), or else 7@ “Iopayd (Fritzsche). The reprobation is 
total, whenever it occurs, but it does not occur to every in- 
dividual of the nation. The qualification is extensive, not 
intensive; denoting the number of the hardened, not the 
degree of the hardening. The reprobate are only a part of 
the Jews. dyxpis ov] implies a time when the present aposta- 
sy and rejection of the mass of the Jews will cease. 70 wAq- 
pwopa| the great body of the Gentiles: universitas, multitudo, 
ingens concursus ethnicorum (Calvin, Fritzsche, Stuart, 
Hodge); not the mere supplement from the Gentiles, to 
take the place of the unbelieving Jews (Olshausen, Philippi). 
IlAjpwua is applied in the sense of a great majority, to the 
Jews, in verse 12; and this “fulness” is defined in verse 26, 
by waés: the nation generally. «icéA9n| se. eis THY éxxAnoiav, 
The church, as the etymology implies, are the elect. The 
“fulness ” of the Gentiles constitutes a definite but immense 
number, whom God foreknew, called, and justified in the 


348 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


cichdn, “Kai odtws Tas “Iopaid cwdjcetat, Kados 
, ts > \ c € 7 J f 2 
yéyparrat “Hew éx« Si@v o pvodpevos, amoatpeper ace- 


manner previously described by the apostle. St. Paul, here, 
asserts the Christianization of the globe, prior to the Chris- 
tianization of the Jews. In neither case, however, is it ne- 
cessary to suppose the regeneration of every individual with- 
out exception. Yet, the terms 7Ajpwpna and was, applied to 
the elect, imply that the non-elect will be comparatively few. 


Ver. 26. ovrws] i. e. after the fulness of the Gentiles has 
entered into the church. das IopaiA] 1. the spiritual Israel, 
composed of elect Jews and Gentiles together, as in Rom. 
ix. 6; Gal. vi.#6 (Aug., Theodoret, Luther, Calvin). The 
connection is against this: for, the apostle having spoken of 
the “fulness” of the Gentiles, is now describing the “ ful- 
ness” of the Jews, in contrast with it. 2. the elect Jews, but 
constituting only a small number brought into the church 
from time to time: the troAeppa of ix. 27; xi. 5 (Bengel, 
Olshausen, Philippi). According to this view, the nation as 
a whole is not to be restored. 3. the great mass or body of 
the nation, who are to be converted after the evangelization 
of the Gentile world (Beza, Riickert, Fritzsche, Tholuck, De 
Wette, Meyer, Hodge). The last is the correct view, be- 
cause 7as is the opposite of do pépous. Prior to the entrance 
of the fulness of the Gentiles into the church, the Jews “in 
part” (xi. 25; ot Aouror, xi. 7; Twes, xi. 17) are blinded. Only 
a remnant of them are among the spiritually elect. The 
nation as a whole is reprobate. But when the fulness of the 
Gentiles shall have come into the church, this state of things 
will be reversed. The nation as a whole (ras “Iopanad) will 
then be spiritually elect and “saved,” and only a fraction (rd 
pépos) spiritually rejected. yéyparra] the citation is given - 
freely from the Septuagint of Isa. lix. 20. The apostle does 


CHAPTER XI. 27, 28 349 


fal 3 lal 
Betas amo “LTaxw8+ * cai airy adtots ) Tap’ éuod dvadj«n, 
4 > la A e Sf > lal 28 \ \ \ 3 
OTav adéhopat Tas dwaptias ad’T@v. * KaTa pév TO evay- 


not obtain his knowledge of the future of the church from 
this passage, but from his own inspiration. He confirms his 
own prediction by the language of Isaiah. é« Suv] the Re- 
deemer shall come from the people of Israel, whose capital is 
Zion. The Septuagint reads evexey Suv, “for Zion,” which 
agrees with the Hebrew. 6 pvomevos| is the Septuagint ren- 
dering of 5x73, the Messiah. dzoortpéper] denotes the con- 
verting power of Christ. Compare Luke i. 16,17. St. Paul 
follows the Septuagint. In the Hebrew, the whole passage 
reads as follows: ‘‘ A redeemer shall come to (or, for) Zion, 
and to (or, for) the converts from transgression, in Jacob.” 
The apostle teaches, that the deliverance alluded to by the 
prophet, is not confined to the “remnant,” or small fraction 
that has been spoken of, but refers to the future conversion 
of the nation as a whole. 


Ver. 27 is cited freely from the Septuagint of Isa. lix. 21, 
in combination with a clause from Isa. xxvil. 9. It describes 
the nature of the covenant of God with his church, in order 
to show what is involved in the future conversion and resto- 
ration of the Jews. St. Paul distinctly teaches that the con- 
version of the Gentile world, as a whole, must take place 
Jefore that of the Jews, as a whole; but he gives no clue to 
the time when it will occur, because no clue was given to 
him, The pvoryprov, or fact itsclf, was revealed to him, but 
iot the time and season, which is unrevealable, according to 


Acts i. 7. 


VERSES 28-32 recapitulate what has been said, in verses 
11-27, concerning the temporary rejection and final election 
of the Jews. «xara evayyéAiov| denotes the point of view: 
‘‘ having respect to the gospel :” i. e. the spread of the gospel. 


3850 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


yérsov éxIpol Ov buds, Kata O€ THY exrNoYHY ayamnTol Oia 
Tovs Tatépas* ™ dueTauédnTa yap Ta yapiowata Kai 7 


Compare the use of ectayyétoy for edayyeAileo Iau, in i. 1. 
€xJpoi| is best regarded as passive: “treated as enemies by 
God.” The subject is suggested by atroy in verse 27: viz.: 
the Jews as unbelieving and rejected. The elliptical word 
with éyJpoi is Jeov (Meyer), not evayyéAuov (Pareus, Fritzsche), 
or IlavAov (Theodoret, Luther). 6.’ iuas] one purpose of the 
rejection of a part of the Jews was, that the entrance of the 
Gentiles into the church might be facilitated and hastened. 
Kara THY exdoynv| ‘having respect to the church of Christ,” 
that total mass which is to be called out of all nations, the 
Jews included: ékAoy7 is here equivalent to ékxAyoia. dyamy- 
tot] denotes the love of compassion, not of complacency. 
See comment on ix. 13. God loved, that is compassionated, 
these Jews who are sinners and “enemies of God.” 6a tous 
matépas| Compare xi. 16. Notwithstanding his rejection of 
a portion of the Jews, God still remembers his covenant with 
Abraham, and purposes to bring into the church the great 
body of his descendants. 


Ver. 29 contains a proof, introduced by yap, that the 
Jews are “beloved.” dyerauéeAnra] Compare Heb. xii. 17. 
The word is emphatic by position, and denotes the unchange- 
ableness of the divine purpose. The promise to Abraham 
and his seed (Gen. xvii. 7) will not be revoked. xap/opara]} 
the effects of the call. «Ajows] the particular act of election: 
the cause of the xapicpara. Calvin regards the “ gifts and 
calling,” here spoken of, as referring only to the theocratic 
privileges and election; and this is favored by the preceding 
context, which speaks of the relation of the Jewish patriarchs 
to their descendants: a relation like that between the “ first 
fruits” and the “lump,” and between the “root” and the 


CHAPTER XI. 30. oon 


KX} D Jeod. “@ Lp Duels ToTe HrewWyoate TO 

Hots Tov Jeov. @oTEp yap vweEls TOTE 1) 7 ¢ 
fel na A , ef 

Sed, vdv S& HrenInte TH TovT@V ameea, * oUTwsS Kal 

ovToL viv nrrEeiInoav, TH bueTéepw ENeet va Kal avTo vuV 


“branches” (xi. 16). Pareus extends the meaning further, 
and makes the “gifts and calling” to be individual and 
spiritual, including faith, remission of sins, and salvation. 
The sentiment of the passage is true in reference to both 


national and individual election. 


Verszs 30 and 31 constitute a single sentence, and are a 
reiteration and confirmation, introduced by yap, of the teach- 
ing in verses 11-27. wtpets] you Gentiles. zoré] “ formerly:” 
before the gospel was preached to you. 7redyoate] ‘ disbe- 
lieved,” and consequently “disobeyed,” in the manner de- 
scribed in i. 18 sq. The conduct agrees with the creed. 
viv] since the gospel has been preached to you. 7AeyIyre] 
the Gentiles became the objects of the divine compassion 
(éAeos), by being called, justified, and sanctified, in the man- 
ner previously described. deJea] is the dative of the in- 
strument. The unbelief of the Jew was the occasional cause 
of the faith of the Gentile (xi. 11-14). ovrov] the unbeliev- 
ing Jews. reiInoav] sc. Jed. The unbelief of the Jew dif- 
fered from that of the heathen, in that it related to God as 
revealed in Christ; the heathen unbelief had respect to God 
as revealed only in nature and the human soul (i. 18 sq.). 
The Jew disobeyed, by rejecting grace; the Gentile, by trans- 
gressing law. wtuerépw| is objective in its force: ‘the com- 
passion shown to you.” édée] is not to be connected with 
qreidnoav (Vulgate, “non crediderunt in vestram misericor- 
diam,” Luther, Lachm., Lange), but with eenJaow (Eng. 
Ver., De Wette, Meyer, Philippi, Alford, Hodge). The con- 
struction of éAée in the apodosis is like that of ameJeia in the 
protasis; because the two words are antithetic. St. Paul 


352 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


A €c \ 2 > 

erenIaow: ™ cuvéxrdercey yap 6 eds Tos Tavtas Els 
Xx f 

ametSevay iva tols wavtas édenon. “ & Bados mAovTOU 


might have written 77 iperepy miata. tva éAenIGow] is placed 
after 7@ iperépw ehea, for the sake of emphasizing the latter. 
Compare 1 Cor. ix. 15; 2 Cor. ii. 4; Gal. ii. 10. As the 
Gentiles, viewed as a whole, obtained the benefits of redemp- 
tion, instrumentally, through the unbelief of the Jews, so the 
Jews, viewed as a whole, will hereafter obtain the benefits 
of redemption, instrumentally, through the belief of the 
Gentiles. 


Ver. 32 confirms the statement in verses 30, 31. ovve- 
kdeioev] compare Gal. iii. 22, 23. The literal and classical 
signification is: “to shut in,” or “inclose,” Luke vy. 6. In 
later Greek, it is used metaphorically, and signifies, “to de- 
liver up to the power of,” Ps. xxxi. 8; Ps. ii. 50 (Sept.). 
Several explanations are given: 1. God declares and proves 
all men to be sinners. He includes (“ concludes,” Eng. Ver.) 
all in a sinful estate. He shuts them up in this class, and 
makes them conscious that they belong toit. To “shut up” 
an opponent, by an argument, is to convict him. (Chrysost., 
Theod., Pareus, Grotius, Wetstein, Wolfius). 2. He per- 
mits them to sin (Origen, Rosenmiiller, Tholuck). 3. He 
judicially withdraws restraints, and gives them over to sin, 
as in i. 24; ix. 18 (Calvin, De Wette, Meyer). The objection 
to this latter explanation is, that judicial blindness is the 
most intense degree of sin, and is the characteristic of a par- 
ticular class of mankind; while the connection requires a 
characteristic that is universal, and common to all (wdvras). It 
is not the fact of great sin, but of sin, that is in the mind of 
the writer. The first explanation is the best. God charges 
all men with sin, and convicts them of it. “God,” says — 
Pareus, ‘has included all men in sin, by manifesting, accus- 


CHAPTER XI. 33, 353 


ing, and condemning unbelief, but not by producing or ap- 
proving it.” The sentiment is kindred to that in iu. 9, 
10: “Jews and Gentiles are all under sin; there is none 
righteous, no, not one.” And the same with that in v. 12: 
“fall have sinned.” tovs révras| both Jews and Gentiles: the 
two classes into which the writer has divided mankind, and 
which have been the subject of his reasoning. Compare iil. 
9. dzeiJeav| see the explanation of draJeia in verse 30. St. 
Paul here refers the sin of the heathen and of the Jew, to 
unbelief: the former to unbelief in God abstractly; the latter 
to unbelief in God in Christ. iva tots ravtas éAenon| the pur- 
pose of God in declaring and evincing that all men are sin- 
ners, is that he may save them from sin. Conviction is in 
order to conversion. It is a means only, and not an end in 
itself. Universal salvation, in the sense of the salvation of 
every individual, is not taught here; because zavras refers to 
classes, not to individuals; to tes and otro in verses 30 and 
31: viz.: Gentiles and Jews. Sin is not confined to either 
class (ii. 9), nor is salvation. Redemption is co-extensive 
with the race. The gospel is offered to all. That it is re- 
jected by some, is proved by ix. 7, 27, 29, 31, 32; x. 3; xi. 
7-10, 22. Meyer finds, here, a purpose on the part of God 
to save all Jews and Gentiles without exception, but this 
purpose is defeated by the self-will of individuals. This con- 
tradicts viii. 29, 30; ix. 16, 18, 21. 


Ver. 33 begins an utterance of praise in view of the com- 
passion of God, as shown in the justification and sanctifica- 
tion of sinners. aJos] may denote either the unsearchable- 
ness (Philippi), or the exuberant fulness (Meyer). 1. To be 
connected with the three following genitives (Chrysost., 
Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Tholuck, De Wette, Olshau- 
sen, Fritzsche, Philippi, Meyer, Hodge). 2. To be connected 
only with zAovrov; the two following genitives being exe- 


354 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


% f \ ig la ¢ =) 7 X\ , 
Kal copias Kal yvacews Jeod: ws aveEepetvnta Ta Kpipata 
avtod Kal ave~tyviactot ai oot avTod. “ Tis yap eyvo 


a / BN / / > AWE 5a) anes ; 
voov Kupiov; 9 Tis aupPBovdos auTOd éyevero; “ TIS 


getical (Luther, Calvin, Beza, Reiche, Eng. Ver.). If the 
first is chosen, wAovrov must have the secondary signification 
of “mercy” (x. 12), or of “resources.” If the second is 
chosen, wAovrov has its literal meaning of ‘ abundance.” 
This is preferable. The tautology of the clause, “‘ depth of 
riches” is explained by the great emphasis and wonder in 
the mind of the writer. codias] refers to the end aimed at, 
by the divine mind. yvacews| refers to the means employed 
for the attainment of the end. «piwara] the decisions or de- 
terminations of God, in this plan of salvation: particularly 
those which relate to the election of some, and the rejection 
of others. dve&yviaoro.| the etymon is tyvos, a track, or foot- 
print. The divine decisions being self-moved, and wholly 
internal, are not traceable by the finite intellect. Compare 
Job y. 9; ix. 10; xxvi.14. doi] the paths, in which the foot- 
prints are not visible. 


Ver. 34 cites Isa. xl. 13, in proof of the preceding state- 
ment. It is nearly literal from the Septuagint. The first 
clause refers to yvwots, and the second to codia (Theodoret, 
Fritzsche, Meyer). 


Ver. 35 continues the Old Testament proof from Job xli. 
3 (Eng. Ver. 11). St. Paul follows the Hebrew text, which 
is mistranslated by the Seventy (xli. 2). “Had man first 
given to God something for which he could claim a recom- 
pense, then the divine wisdom would not be free and inexpli- 
cable, but determined and conditioned by human action, and 
therefore within the reach and cognizance of human calcula- 
tion.” Philippiin loco, In the whole matter of the forgive- 


CHAPTER XI. 36. 3855 


Yi > A \ > / > A 36o6¢ “ 
Mpoéd@Key avT@, Kal avTamododncetat avTd; * dru && 
avtov Kal dv avtod Kai eis avTév Ta TavTa* a’Te 1) SoEa 


els TOUS al@vas, aunv. 


ness of sin and gratuitous justification, no man first gives to 
God, and as a consequence of such gift is repaid by God. 


Ver. 36 answers the question in verse 35, by implication, 
in the negative. ‘No one first gave,” etc., “‘ because,” ete. 
ére] introduces the reason. é& aitrod| out of, or from God, 
as the source. The reference is to creative power. 60 avrod] 
through God’s continual working. The reference is to prov- 
idential preservation, Heb. i. 5. «is airdv] to God as the 
ultimate end. 7a zavra] all the divine acts and their conse- 
quences, in the three great spheres of creation, providence, 
and redemption. ‘These are intended to manifest the divine 
excellence, and thereby to promote the worship and glory of 
God by the creature. Some commentators find the trini- 
tarian distinctions, in this use of the prepositions, as in 1 Cor. 
vill. 6; Coloss. i. 16 (Augustine, Hilary, Olshausen, Philippi). 
Tholuck, in the 4th edition of his commentary on Romans, 
remarking upon Olshausen’s assertion that the relation of 
Father, Son, and Spirit is expressed in this passage, ob- 
serves: ‘f And who can dispute this, when the apostle else- 
where describes the Father as the causal principle, the Son 
as the Mediator, the Spirit as the principle immanent in the 
church?” In the dth edition, however, he denies the trini- 
tarian reference. d0éa] sc. e(7. The term denotes the honor 
and homage due to God, from the creature. Compare Gal. 
i. 5; Eph. i. 21. «is tots aiévas| absolute eternity: the 
plural is intensive. 


CHAPTER XII. 


* Ilapaxare odv wpas, adeddgol, dua TaV oiKTiPLaD 
Tov Jeov, Tapacticat Ta copata buav Svoiav Cocav 
ayiay evdpectov TO Jew, THY RoyiKnv RaTpEelav Duar, 


Sr. Pau, having completed his statement of the doctrine 
of gratuitous justification, passes, in the remainder of the 
Epistle, to consider the duties that grow out of a justified 
state and condition. He deduces the principles of Christian 
ethics and morality from the evangelical system itself. Chris- 
tian ethics differs from pagan ethics, in respect: 1. to its 
greater extent; and 2. to the underlying motive. The for- 
mer includes duties toward God, the people of God, and 
mankind at large. The latter is restricted to the relations 
of man to man. Christian ethics finds its motive in the 
sense of the divine mercy in Christ, and the consciousness 
of redemption ; the motive of pagan ethics is prudential 
only; either that of fear, or of self-interest. 

The apostle, with some transposition of topics, owing to 
the rapid and energetic movement of his thought, enun- 
ciates the duties of the Christian believer under the follow- 
ing heads: 1. Duties to God and the Church: xi. 1-193; xiv. 1- 
xv. 13; xvi. 17-20; 2. Duties to the State: xiii. 1-7; 3. Du- 
ties to Society: xii. 14-21; xii. 8-14. He then concludes 
with personal references, greetings, and benediction: xy. 14— 
xvl. 16; xvi. 21-27. 


Ver. 1. zapaxao| “Moses jubet: apostolus hortatur.” 
Bengel in loco. otv] draws an inference, not from xi. 35, 36 


CHAPTER XII. 1. 357 


(Tholuck, Meyer), but from the whole discussion of the right- 
eousness of God, in chapters i.—xi. (Calvin, Bengel, De Wette, 
Philippi, Hodge). St. Paul founds the ensuing ethics and 
morality upon the foregoing doctrines of justification, sancti- 
fication, and election. Compare Eph. iv. 1; 1 Thess. iv. 1. 
da] “through,” or “by means of.” ‘The preposition implies 
that the motive to obey the exhortations that follow, lies in 
the divine mercy exercised toward redeemed sinners in the 
manner described. Their gratitude for the compassion of 
God in their redemption would impel them to Christian 
service. oikripuav] is the Septuagint translation of pian, 
“bowels.” It denotes the divine compassion for man, who 
as sinful is exposed to the divine wrath. See the explana- 
tion of #yamrnoa in ix. 13, and of €Aejow in ix. 15. Tapacrh- 
oat] is the classical term to denote the laying of the sacri- 
ficial victim on the altar. owpara] not the body in distinction 
from the soul (Fritzsche, Meyer); nor the sensuous nature 
(Kéllner); but the entire man (Beza, De Wette, Philippi, 
Stuart, Hodge). Compare vi. 12, 13. The body, in distine- 
tion from the soul, could not be offered as a “rational” and 
spiritual sacrifice. Jvoiay] not a propitiatory sacrifice, but 
the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, Heb. xiii. 15, 16. 
Gécav| “ abominabile est, cadaver offerre.” Bengel. dyiav| 
“consecrated,” Luke ii. 23; John xvii. 19. 76 Jed] is the 
adjunct of evapeoros. Compare Phil. iv. 18; Eph. v. 2; Heb. 
xilil. 16. ryv AoyiKy Aatpecay| is in apposition with the entire 
sentence mapagryjcac . . . TG Jed; because only the self-con- 
secration (not the Jvoia) could be denominated a Aarpeia, or 
cultus. Aoyuiy] “that is, having in it nothing bodily, noth- 
ing tangible, nothing sensible” (Chrysostom). Cicumenius 
explains by “bloodless.” St. Peter (ii. 2) speaks of NoyKxov 
yada: milk suited to the mind. Athenagoras denominates 
the true knowledge of God and the sincere prayers of Chris- 
tians a Aoyixy Aarpeia. “The believer’s rational service to 


358 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


2 \ 4 / aA 7A 7 > \ 

Kal pon ouvynuatiferSar TO aiove ToUT@, GAA peETa- 
a n We a 

HLoppovesar TH avaKatvwoet Tod voos, eis TO doKysatery 

e a 5 A Gé a 4 lal \ 2! ado \ WF \ 

twas TL TO IéAn“a Tod Jeod, TO ayadov Kal evapectov Kal 


God consists not, like the theocratic cultus, in material obla- 
tions, but in inward rational self-consecration, both as to 
soul and body.” Philippi in loco. Compare John iy. 23, 24; 
1 Pet. i. 5. 


Ver. 2. cvvynparilerIar] with perapoppoigta is the read- 
ing of ADEFG Griesbach, Lachm.; and is adopted by De 
Wette, Meyer, Philippi, Alford. The Receptus with & 
(which reads perapopdoteIa) BL Peshito, Itala, Vulgate, 
Tischendorf, read ovuvynpatigerde and perapopdotcte. The 
first is preferable, because a second dependent sentence con- 
nected with wapaxad@ is easy and natural; and because & it- 
self has the infinitive in the second instance, suggesting that 
the imperative in the first instance, in this ms., may be a 
mistake of the scribe. The difference between oyjua and 
poopy), in these two verbs, is that between the outward shape 
and the inward organic structure. Compare Phil. 11. 6-8, 
where popdy denotes the divine essence of the Logos, and 
oxna the human figure or shape that was assumed. In this 
passage, however, there is no need to press this distinction. 
Christians are exhorted not to fashion themselves upon the 
scheme or model of this world. aiév rov7rw| is the same as 6 
eveatas aiwv, Gal. i. 4; and 6 viv aidv, Eph. i. 2. It is the 
contrary of 6 aidv 6 epydpevos, Luke xviii. 30; and 6 aidy 6 
pedrwv, Mat. xii. 82. The difference between the two is 
identical with that between time and eternity; the transient 
and the everlasting state of existence. See comment on vi, 
22. The New Testament everywhere represents the present 
temporary world in which man is living, as under the domin- 
ion of sin and Satan, “the prince of this world.” Compare 


CHAPTER XII. 2, 3859 


ameiv. 30; xv. 18, 19; xvi. 8, 11, 20, 33; xvi. 9, 14, 165 
ete 4=) Eph. ii. 3; vi..53 1 John ii. 15-17; ii. 1, 13; iv. 4, 
5; v. 4,5; vi. 19. A “worldly” spirit is a selfish and wicked 
spirit. The true distinction between the church and the 
world is, that the former fashions itself upon the “scheme” 
of the future and the everlasting; the latter upon that of the 
present and fleeting moment. Believers, though in ‘this 
world” are not a part of it. According to the inspired view 
and theory, the profane and secular world is immoral. Mere- 
ly human civilization is luxury, and luxury is sin. The world- 
ly centres of civilization are centres of evil. Babylon is the 
symbol of them, Rey. xviii. 2-24. perayoppotoJat| is middle: 


> The believer, being regenerate, 


“to transform yourselves.’ 
co-operates with the Holy Spirit in sanctification, and hence 
may be urged to holy activity. Were he “dead in sin,” 
such a command would be inconsistent. Compare the com- 
mand to self-renewal (not self-regeneration), in Eph. iv. 23. 
dvaxawvooe| is the instrumental dative. By means of his 
progressive sanctification, the believer is transformed from 
the one scheme of life, to the other. This text proves that 
the vods, equally with the sensuous nature, is affected by 
apostasy, and requires regeneration and sanctification. After 
voos, the Receptus NEL Peshito, Aithiopic, Vulgate, have 
tpav: it is omitted by ABDF Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. «is 
70 doxysacew]| “in order to test,” and thereby to understand. 
One design, though not the only one, of increasing sanctifi- 
cation, is that the believer may distinguish between what 
pleases and what displeases God. Clearness of moral per- 
ception, and tenderness of conscience, result from growth in 
grace. Compare Eph. v. 10; Phil. i. 10; Heb. v. 14. 76 
Jednpa| the objective will, or the divine law (ii. 18; 1 Thess. 
iv. 3). The Vulgate, Chrysostom, and others, understand 
by it, the subjective will of God: the divine inclination or 
desire. But in this case, it would be needless to describe it 


3860 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Tédelov. “eyo yap Oia THs yapitos THs Sodetons poe 
TavTl T@ ovTe ev Luly, wy Umepppoveiv Tap o Sel ppovety, 
ara ppovety cis TO Twhpoveiv, ExdoTw @S 0 JEds Emepice 

a pp S p : ~ OS Os €uépioev 


as évdpecrov. An act of will is of course willing; and a 
desire is pleasing. 70 dyadov, etc.] is in apposition, and 
describes the divine law or will. 


Vur. 3. A€yw] denotes, here, a command or injunction, as 
in Mat. v. 34, 39, 44. yap] ‘‘namely,” i. e., in accordance 
with the preceding exhortation in verses 1 and 2.  xapuros]} 
the grace conferred on him for the apostolie office. Com- 
pare i. 5; xv. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10; Gal i 15) [psp 
@, 8; 1 Tim. 1.12. This gave St. Paul authority: ihe 
word of the apostles has the same weight as the word of 
their Master, Luke x. 16. ayvri, etc.] every individual, with- 
out exception. izepdpovety . . ppoveiv . . cwppoveiv] Compare, 
for the paronomasia, 1 Cor. xi. 31, 32; xiil. 6, 7, 13.  qpovety 
is the base: to mind; to mind overmuch; to mind wisely. 
“T]lud peccat in excessu per superbiam; istud est justum de 
se et aliis judicium: hoc vero significat modestiam.” Wet- 
stein, “Mind” (¢pyv) is employed in the sense of temper 
or disposition. Christians are first of all exhorted to the 
principal grace of, Christianity: viz., humility, or a right 
mental attitude of the creature before the Creator. This is 
the particular grace which Christ singles out of his own ab- 
solute and perfect character, for imitation by his disciples, 
Mat. xi. 29; xviii. 2-4. ékacrw] is placed before instead of 
after ws, for emphasis. Compare 1 Cor. iii. 5; vii. 17. ds] 
denotes proportion. ziorews| faith in Christ. Justifying 
faith is the gift of God, according to his election. It has a 
variety of degrees and graces (érpov), 1 Cor. xii. 4 sq.; Eph. 
iv. 7,16. Some are called to a more distinguished service 
in the church than others; and the personal estimate which 


CHAPTER XII. 4,5. 3861 


\ 

pétpov wictews. ‘Kadarep yap év évl cepate ToAAG 
thn Evomev, TA O€ MEAN TAaVTA Ov THY avTHVY ever Tpakw 
perm Exopev, TA SE pédy yy avriy exer mpakuw, 
e rn > A \ \ ar 

* UT@S Of TOAD EV TOUa Eopev ev XpiaT@, TO SE Kad’ Eis 


the believer should have concerning himself should be exact- 
ly proportioned to the gifts which he has received. To 
think neither too much nor too little of the grace of God 
within the soul, is one of the most difficult of all duties. 
For instances of its performance by St. Paul, see 1 Cor. ii. 
4 erive 9-15; xv. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 5, 23-33; xii. 2-13... The 
apostle makes humility to be the foundation of Christian 
ethics and morality. The pagan ethics is vitiated, even in 
its best form as seen in the Platonic philosophy, and still 
more in the Stoic, by egotism, or the disposition trepdpovetv 
map 0 dec ppovety. 


Ver. 4. The Church is described under the figure (com- 
mon also in classical writers) of an organic body. Compare 
1 Cor. xii. 12 sq. There is reciprocity of action in an or- 
ganism; so that no one part is independent of the others. 
This excludes a proud self-reliance. Only that which is self- 
existent and isolated is excused from humility. Meekness 
and lowliness of spirit would be unsuitable to God, but is 
necessarily required in all created and dependent beings. 
mpaéw| “function.” No one member can discharge all the 
bodily functions; it is confined to its own office. “If the 
whole body were an eye, where were the hearing?” 1 Cor. 
x uy. 

Ver. 5. of toAAoi] the multitude of Christian individuals. 
&v copa év Xpucrd| justifying faith unites each believer to 
Christ, and thus the multitude of units becomes a unity. 
This union is so intimate with Christ the Head, that the 
unity itself, or the Church, in one instance, is actually de- 


nominated “Christ,” 1 Cor. xii. 12. Compare Eph. i. 23; 
16 


362 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


GAnrav wéry. ° yovtes O€ yapiopata Kata THY ydpLW THY 
doteicav juiv Sudpopa, cite mpopyteiav, Kata THY avado- 
ylay Tis micTews, 


iv. 15, 16, 23; Coloss. 1.18; ii. 19. 76 de] is the reading of 
SABDFG Lachm., Tisch. The Receptus reading, 6 dé is 
supported only by EL. «xa? és] is a solecism not uncom- 
mon in later Greek. Compare Mark xiv. 19; John viii. 9; 
Rey. xxi. 21. The regular form, xa!’ éva, occurs in 1 Cor. 
xiv. 831; Eph. v. 33. The meaning of the clause is: “ But in 
respect to (70. 1. ¢€., xard 70) our individual relation (xa! és), 
we are members of one another.” 


Ver. 6. éxovres] is not a descriptive adjunct of éopev in 
verse 5, and separated from it only by a comma (Lachm., 
Tisch., De Wette, Reiche), but begins a new hortatory sen- 
tence (Eng. Ver., Beza, Griesbach, Olshausen, Fritzsche, 
Meyer, Philippi, Hodge). 6é] “now,” is transitive to the 
exhortation, which is founded upon the preceding statement 
that believers are the recipients of divine gifts, and are mem- 
bers of one another. xapicpata] the gifts are specified below, 
and presuppose faith in Christ. Unbelievers never have them. 
dudgopa| the difference in the gifts is due to God the Holy 
Spirit, who “divideth to every man severally as he will,” 
1 Cor, xii. 11. zpodyre‘ay] the enumeration of the gifts now 
begins. The gift of prophecy was more than the ability to 
expound the Old Testament, especially the prophetical books 
(Zwingli, Calvin, and elder Lutheran exegetes). ‘The New 
Testament idea of the prophetic office is essentially the same 
as that of the Old Testament. Prophets are men who, in- 
spired by the Spirit of God, remove the veil from the future 
(Rey. i. 3; xxii. 7, 10; John xi. 51; Acts xi. 27, 285 xxi 10; 
11, compare 1 Pet. i. 10); make known concealed facts of the 
present, either in discovering the secret will of God (Luke i. 


CHAPTER XII. 6. 363 


67 sq.; Acts xiii. 1 sq.; Eph. iii. 5), or in disclosing the hid- 
den thoughts of man (1 Cor. xiv. 24, 25), and bringing into 
light his unknown deeds (Mat. xxvi. 68; Mark xiv. 65; Luke 
xxii. 64; John iv. 19); and dispense to their hearers instruc- 
tion, comfort, exhortation in animated, powerfully impas- 
sioned language going far beyond the ordinary limits of 
human discourse (Mat. vu. 28, 29; Luke xxiv. 19; John vii. 
40; Acts xv. 32; 1 Cor. xiv. 3, 4, 31).” Philippi in loco. 
The difference between an apostle (who is also a prophet, 
Eph. ii. 20; iii. 5), and a prophet was, that the former office 
was more comprehensive than the latter, and its inspiration 
was abiding, while that of the latter was occasional and 
transient. xara tiv dvadoylay THs mioTews| sc. mpodyTevwper. 
1. Subjective faith is meant. The clause is equivalent to 
kara p.érpov tictews. The prophet must be true and sincere, 
communicating only what God has revealed to him (Origen, 
Chrysost., Ambrose, Bengel, De Wette, Tholuck, Meyer). 
2. The objective rule of faith is meant. The individual 
prophecy must harmonize with that body of doctrine which 
has come down from the beginning, 1 Cor. iil. 11; xiv. 37; 
xy. 3; Gal. i. 8,9; 1 John iv. 6 (Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, 
Pareus, Flatt, Klee, Umbreit, Philippi, Hodge). The latter 
is preferable, because in this connection the apostle would 
be more likely to exhort to accuracy in the teaching than to 
sincerity. The latter might be presumed, as a matter of 
course; but there might be mistakes made by a sincere man. 
That aiors is used in the New Testament in the objective 
signification of a creed, or rule of faith, is proved by Gal. i. 
Seto E nil. ii: 16; 1 Tim. iv: 1; ‘vi. 20; 2 Tim. i..13; 14; 
Miedo, 18: iv. 3: Titus i. 4,9; ii. 1, 6,10. And that 
such a test was required, to protect the church from the 
heterodoxy of false prophets is proved by Mat. xxiv. 11, 24; 
1 Thess. v. 19-21; 1 Tim. iv. 1; 1 Johniv.1. This injune- 
tion of St. Paul is the key to systematic theology. No al- 


364 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


" elre Siaxoviav, év TH Svaxovia, elre 0 SiddoKwv, ev TH 
Sisackania, * cite 6 TapaKkah@n, év TH Tapakdyjoel, 0 peTa- 
Sid00s, €v aTAOTNTL, O TpoiaTdpevos, EV OTTOUOH, O EEDV, EV 
tNapornte. 


leged Christian tenet can be correct which conflicts with 
other Christian tenets. All Christian truth must be con- 
sistent with Christianity. For example, the deity of Christ 
supposes the doctrine of the trinity; monergistic regenera- 
tion involves the doctrine of election; and an infinite atone- 
ment for sin, by God-incarnate, logically implies an infinite 
penalty for sin. 


Ver. 7. duxoviay] not ‘ministry ” in the general sense 


of any ecclesiastical office whatever, as in 1 Cor. il. 5; 
2 Cor, vi. 4; Eph. iii. 7; vi. 21; Coloss. i. 7, 23; 1 Tim. iv. 6 
(Chrysost., Luther), but in the restricted sense of the diac- 
onate (De Wette, Meyer, Philippi). The writer is enumer- 
ating particular gifts and offices in the church. The deacons 
had charge of the external affairs of the church; the care of 
the poor, the sick, etc., Acts vi. 1-3; Phil. i. 1; 1 Tim. m1. 
8-13. év TH diaxovia] sc. Ouev: employed intensively, as in 
1 Tim. iv. 15. Compare the “totus in illis” of Horace. The 
deacon must do his work thoroughly. 6 ddoxwv| the ‘ teach- 
er” is distinguished from the prophet, in 1 Cor, x1. 28; Eph. 
iv. 11. The latter implied inspiration; the former only the 
common knowledge of a devout and disciplined Christian 
mind. The office of “teacher” corresponded, probably, to 
that of the modern “preacher.” éy 7H duacKadia] sc. eoTw ¢ 
in the intensive sense, as above. 


Ver. 8. 6 ropaxahav] “exhortation” is addressed more 
to the heart, and “teaching” to the understanding; yet 
neither can be separated from the other. They were not 
two offices, consequently, but were united in one person. 


CHAPTER XII. 8. 365 


See 1 Cor. xiv. 31; Titusi. 9. But a talent for one or the 
other form of instruction generally predominates in an in- 
dividual. év tH wapaxdyjoe.| sc. éorw : in the intensive sense, 
as above. 6 peradidovs] 1. the official giving of the funds 
of the church, by the deacon. 2. the private charity of the 
individual believer. The first view is preferable, because 
the writer is enumerating the offices of the church. The 
second view is favored, however, by the fact that peradidovar 
is employed to denote private benevolence, in Luke iii. 11; 
Eph. iv. 28, while official distribution is denoted by d:ad.do- 
vat, in Acts iv. 35; and also by the adjunct év awAdryt.  “ Sin- 
cerity” is more naturally referred to a private, than to an 
official act. De Wette combines the two views: “the apos- 
tle here, as in the use of éAev which is commonly referred to 
the deacon’s care of the sick, extends the scope of the offi- 
cial xdpuya, so as to include the common agency of the 
church member also.” év dz)orytt| for the explanation, see 
Mat. vi. 2 sq.; Luke vi. 30-35. All ostentation, and merce- 
nary motive, is excluded. 6 zpowrtépevos| not the person who 
had charge of the strangers, like Phoebe, xvi. 2 (Bengel, 
Vitringa, Stuart); but the president, or overseer, elsewhere 
denominated émickoros, mpeaBvrepos, moywyv (Calvin, Rothe, 
Philippi, Hodge). See, in proof, 1 Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim. iii. 
4,5; v.17. The standing designation of the bishop or pres- 
byter, in the primitive church, was 6 zpoectws. Compare 
Justin Martyr, i. 67. The gift requisite for the office is the 
xXdpicpa KvBepvycews, 1 Cor. xii. 28. ev orovdy| with zeal and 
earnestness: all perfunctory service is excluded. 6 éAcv| 
the deacon’s service of attendance upon the sick and suffer- 
ing is primarily in view, because the apostle is speaking of 
official gifts; yet the exhortation is applicable to the private 
Christian. An injunction to the performance of Christian 
duty may have a principal reference, and yet not an exclu- 
sive one. é tapdryt] with “hilarity.” A cheerful spon- 


366 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


° 9) ayamn avuUTroKpLTOS* amToaTUYyoUVTES TO ToVvNnpOV, KOA- 
Awmevor TO ayato. “TH piradeApia eis GAHXouS Pid0o- 


taneity and alacrity is meant. Pity should be impulsive, 
and not an effort; an inclination, and not a volition. Com- 
pare 2 Cor. ix. 7; Philemon 14. 


Ver. 9, St. Paul passes, now, from the duties of church 
officers, to those of church members generally. Christian 
ethics is now viewed in its individual and private aspects. 
i) yarn avuToKpitos| sc. €otw. Compare 2 Cor. vi. 6; 1 Pet. i. 
22. Genuine morality is founded in inclination, or affection. 
An act that is not prompted by real pleasure in the act is 
not of the nature of virtue. It is, more or less, insincere 
and hypocritical. The particular moral affection that under- 
lies true ethics is love, and hence St. Paul begins with this. 
“Love is the fulfilling of the law,” xiii. 10; and “the bond 
of perfectness,” Coloss. iii. 14; because if this feeling exists 
in the soul, all the external acts required by the law will fol- 
low naturally and necessarily. If there be supreme love of 
God in the heart, all duties toward God will be discharged. 
If there be the love of the neighbor as of the self, all duties 
toward mankind will be performed. It is to be noticed, that 
the affection of love is here, as elsewhere, the object of a 
command; which shows that the moral affections are modes 
of the will. But that this command to love may be obeyed, 
the human will itself must be enabled “ to will” (Phil. ii. 13), 
by the Holy Spirit; because the affection of love is the deep 
and central determination of the will, and not a mere volition 
or resolution. doorvyodvres . . KoAAdmevor] sc. eoré, These 
participial clauses we regard as exegetical of the preceding 
exhortation to sincere love, and punctuate accordingly. Pure 
Christian love manifests itself in two phases: the ethical re- 
coil from moral evil, and the cleaving to moral good. The 


CHAPTER XII. 10, 11. 367 


a n b) f 7 11 A a 
OTOPYyoL* TH Tin ArANAOUS TpONyOUMEVOL. Th o7Trovon 
Hn OKYnpol> TH TvedpaTe Céovtes, TO Kupi~ SovaAEvovtTes, 


former, full as much as the latter, evinces the sincerity of the 
affection. Indifference toward sin, and especially an indulgent 
temper toward it, proves that there is no real love of holiness. 
The true measurement of a man’s love of God, is the intensity 
with which he hates evil. Compare Ps. xevii. 10. The ethics 
produced by the sentimental idea of God and of moral evil, 
is ‘easy virtue.” Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact 
explain the preposition in dtoorvyotvres as intensive: odddpa 
pucetv; ex Wuyys pucetv. The word xo\Adw denotes the closest 
possible adherence. Compare Luke x. 11. 


Ver. 10. 17 fiAadeA pia] is the dative of reference. Broth- 
erly love, in the New Testament, is a highly prominent phase 
of love in general. Compare 1 Thess. iv. 9; Heb. xiii. 1; 
1 Pet. 1. 22; 2 Pet. i. 7. uAdaropyo| sc. éoré. The orépyn is 
the tenderest form of affection, because founded in the physi- 
cal nature and in blood-relationship; and similar should be 
the affection of Christian toward Christian. 77 typ ddAjAovs 
mponyovmevor] this participial clause, also, is explanatory of 
the preceding exhortation: “in regard to showing honor, 
preceding one another;” i. e., going before one another 
(Luke xxii. 47), either as an example, or as anticipating. 
Brotherly affection is manifested particularly in the desire 
that a fellow Christian be honored, rather than one’s self. 


Vur. 11. tH orovdy is the dative of reference. ‘“ Zeal” is 
strenuous energy in the execution of anything. It is not to 
be restricted, here, to preaching, or any one Christian duty; 
but denotes the Christian temper, in respect to all duties. 
St. Paul, in the context, mentions a number of them. pH 
éxvypoi| se. eore. “In regard to zeal, be not lazy ” (Luther). 
eovres| sc. éote. This and the following participial clauses 


868 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS, 


"7h édmids yaipovtes, TH Inver brrouévovtes, TH Tpo- 
Cevy} TpocKapTepotytes, * Tais ypelats TOV ayiwv Koww- 
voovres, THY pirokeviav SidKovTes. 


are exegetical of the injunction not to be sluggish. avev- 
part] denotes the temper or disposition. Compare Acts 
Xvili. 25. xkvpiw] is supported by SABL Peshito, Copt., 
4Eth., Vulgate, Receptus, Beza, Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. 
Codices DFG, Griesbach, Mill, read xapé. But the injune- 
tion to “serve the time,” or to “accommodate one’s self to 
the time,” is the maxim of worldly policy, rather than of 
Christianity. Christians are to make the best wse of time 
(Eph. v. 16), but are not to serve it. SovAevovres] se. éore, 
This clause discriminates true from false zeal, which serves 
self, or man, rather than the Lord. 


Ver. 12. The three exhortations in this verse are con- 
nected with each other, and involve an earnest and zealous 
Christian spirit. éA7i3:] is the dative of the ground or mo- 
tive: “on account of hope.” Christian love is the ground 
of Christian joy, as heathen despair is the ground of heathen 
sorrow, | Thess. iv. 13 (Philippi). SAipe] the dative of the 
state or condition. topuévovres| denotes patient endurance, 
See comment onii. 7. zpooxaprepotvtes| signifies unremitting 
attention. Compare Luke xviii. 7; Acts i. 14; Eph. vi. 18; 
Coloss. iv. 2; 1 Thess. v. 17. Continual prayer is requisite 
in order patiently to endure earthly trials and sorrows; and 
patient endurance is impossible without the glad hope of an 
ultimate deliverance from trials. 


Ver. 13. Christian zeal is now described in its outward 
exhibition toward fellow believers. xpeiais] the reading 
pveiats, supported only by DF, is probably a corruption in- 
troduced by the later ‘“‘commemoration” of saints, and is 
almost universally rejected. kowwvoivres] may have the 


CHAPTER XII. 14, 15. 369 


* Hinoyetre tos SiwKovras buds* evrAoyelTe, Kal pr 
Katapadote, ** yaipew meta YatpovTwV, Kale META K)aL- 


transitive signification: ‘to impart,” Gal. vi. 6; but the 
intransitive meaning: ‘to partake,” is the prevalent one in 
the New Testament. See Rom. xv. 27; Phil. iv. 15; 1 Tim. 
vy. 22; Heb. ii. 14; 1 Pet. iv. 13; 2 John 11. Christians, by 
sympathy and zealous endeavor to relieve, are to make the 
needy condition of their brethren common (xowds) to them- 
selves. tAogeviay| hospitality is often enjoined in the New 
Testament. See Heb. xiii. 2; 1 Tim. v.10; Titus i. 8; 1 Pet. 
iv. 9. The poverty of the early church, and the lack of inns, 
made this form of brotherly love uncommonly necessary. 
dudkovres| the needy must be sought out and followed after; 
not merely received when they present themselves. ‘‘ Sec- 
tantes, ut hospites non modo admittatis, sed queratis” 
(Bengel). 

Ver. 14. St. Paul now turns to the duties relating to so- 
ciety generally, and the unsanctified world.  «vidAoyeire, etc. ] 
the words of Christ (Mat. v. 44; Luke vi. 28) were probably 
in the mind of the writer. Similar references to the Sermon 
on the Mount occur in the apostolic epistles. Compare Rom, 
eerste @or- iv. 12;: 13; vit: 10; James:iv. 9; v.12;.1 Pet 
iii, 9, 14; iv. 14.  Suxovras] “Christi causa” (Bengel). 
KatapaoJe| “ne animo quedem” (Bengel). Such an exhor- 
tation as this would not apply to fellow Christians, but to 
persecuting Jews and Pagans. 


Ver. 15. xalpewv and xdalew] sc. tuds de. The infinitive is 
used for the imperative, when emphasis and precision are 
desired in the command. The two verbs are contrasted in 
John xvi. 20; 1 Cor. vii. 30.’ Respecting this injunction, 
Chrysostom remarks that it is easier to weep with those that 


weep, than to rejoice with those that rejoice; because nature 
1G* 


370 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


, o A ig 4 
ovt@v, * TO avTO Eis GANHAOUS HpovodyTEs. pI) Ta UYAG 
dpovobytes, GANA Tols TaTreLvols TUVaTTaAyOmEVOL* pi) yWET~ 
Se hpdvisos wap éavrots. " wndevi Kaxov avTl Kako aTro- 


itself prompts the former, but envy stands in the way of the 
latter. 


Ver. 16. dpovodvres] sc. core. This clause we regard as 
explanatory of the preceding injunction, and punctuate 
accordingly. ‘Be of the same mind or temper, in regard to 
one another: accord with the joy or the grief, as the case 
may be.” Real and perfect sympathy with his fellow man is 
the duty of a Christian. 7a tyAa] riches, honor, office, ete. 
¢povotvres] denotes the disposition and aspiration of the 
mind. Compare xi. 20, tazeuwots| is best regarded as neu- 
ter, as the opposite of tyAa (Calvin, Beza, De Wette, 
Fritzsche, Meyer, Philippi). ovvarayduevor] sc. éore. The 
word signifies, “to be carried or drawn away with,” Gal. ii. 
13; 2 Pet. iii. 7 Men naturally are carried away with the 
pride of life; but Christians should be attracted rather by 
its lowly circumstances and conditions. Compare the in- 
junction to the rich “to rejoice, in that he is made low,” 
James i. 10. zap’ éavrois] See comment on xi. 25. Those 
who are wise “before themselves,” or in their own estima- 
tion merely, are self-conceited. This clause is to be con- 
nected with the preceding, being kindred in sentiment and 
explanatory. 


Ver. 17. pndevi] is universal: Jew or Gentile, Christian or 
Pagan. dod.wertes| sc. eore. Compare Mat. v. 39; 1 Thess. 
v. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 23; iii. 9. The doctrine of the Pharisees 
was exactly contrary. See Mat. v. 38, 43. The precept not 
to render evil for evil is taught by Socrates (Crito, 49). But 
Socrates could not impart the disposition to obey the pre- 
cept. Hermann (on Sophoclis Philoct., 679) states the. 


CHAPTER XII. 18. 371 


8 8 , Ve \ SETS: , > , 

LOOVTES, TpovoovpEvoL Kaa evoOTTLOY TraVTOV aVIpOTwD. 
’ la fal 

* ef OuvaTov, TO €& Kuav, weTAa TaVTWY aVIpeTeV eipynvevor- 


common doctrine of Grecian morality as follows: ‘Nec 
laudant Greeci, si quis iniquis equus est, sed virtutem esse 
censent equis zequum, iniquum autem iniquis esse.” mpovoov- 
pevor, etc.] Compare 2 Cor. viii. 21. This clause is to be con- 
nected with the preceding injunction, as explanatory of it. 
The participle has a limiting force: “ yet being mindful of (or 
exhibiting) things honorable in the sight of all men.” The 
command to submit to wrongs, and not to render evil for 
evil, is to be obeyed not in a pusillanimous manner, but with 
Christian dignity. Thomas Paine, in reference to the in- 
junction of our Lord to turn the other cheek to the smiter, 
charges Christianity with ‘the spirit of a spaniel,” asserting 
that it destroys proper self-respect, and renders man indiffer- 
ent to insult and affronts. St. Paul guards here against such 
an interpretation of this unique command, peculiar to the 
Christian religion alone. «ada] not “honest” (Eng. Ver.), 
but “honorable”: the “honestum” in Cicero’s use of the 
word. There is no reference to an honest provision for 
domestic necessities. 


Ver. 18. «i dvvardv] the possibility of being at peace with 
all men is partly subjective, and partly objective; depend- 
ing partly upon the Christian, and partly upon the world. 
It may be necessary for the believer to discharge duty, or to 
bear witness to the truth; and this may exasperate the unbe- 
liever. “Be friends of all men, if it be possible; if it is not 
possible upon both sides, then at all events be friendly upon 
your own part” (Grotius). Respecting the objective possi- 
bility in the case, Calvin remarks that “it is not possible 
that there should be perpetual peace between the soldiers 
of Christ, and the sinful world whose prince is Satan.” to 


3872 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Tes, © py) EavTovs ExdtKovvTEs, ayaTrnTol, dNXNa Sore TOTO 
Th Opyn* yéyparrras yap ’Epoi éxdixnors, éyo avratrodocw, 
AEeyes KUpLOS. 


ef tpav] sc. xara: “as regards what proceeds from you.” 
It is not the same as 70 kar’ éué (i. 15): ‘my ability.” 


Ver. 19 is to be connected with verse 18, as epexegetical. 
One way whereby to live peaceably with all men is, not to 
revenge one’s own wrongs, dre tozov tH dpyy| The change 
in the construction from the participial imperative to the reg- 
ular imperative is for the sake of greater precision and em- 
phasis. 1. épyj denotes the wrath of God: “give place to, 
or make way for, the divine retribution ” (Chrysost., August., 
Calvin, De Wette, Tholuck, Meyer, Philippi, Hodge). This 
agrees with the preceding injunction, not to take vengeance 
into one’s own hand; and with the succeeding explanatory 
clause, “‘ Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.” 
2. épyy denotes the believer’s wrath: “give time to wrath,” 
that is, “ allow it to subside inwardly ” (Semler, Stuart). In 
support of this explanation is cited the Latin phrase, “‘ darent 
ire spatium,” Livy, ii. 56; viii. 32; Lactant, De Ira, 18. But 
in these places, spatium is temporal, denoting a space of time ; 
while ro7os denotes place only: a space in which to operate. 
3. Opyn denotes the ‘adversary’s wrath: “allow him to vent 
his rage” (Morus, Jowett, Wordsworth). This, like the 
first explanation, agrees with the meaning of ddre tomov: 
compare Luke xiv. 9; Judges xx. 36; but not with either 
context. Moreover, it would be a merely prudential, not an 
ethical injunction. St. Paul, here, represents it as a Chris- 
tian duty to desire that divine justice be administered by 
the Divine Being. To object to retribution as measured out 
by the Supreme Judge is unethical, and immoral. The 
Christian should not have the slightest desire to administer. 


CHAPTER XII. 19. 373 


justice himself, particularly in reference to his own wrongs; 
but he should rejoice in the fact that an unerring and impar- 
tial Ruler will render to every man according to his deeds. 
“ Personal injury, so far as it is merely injury to himself, the 
Christian is unconditionally to forgive. But so far as it is 
injury to the divine holiness as well; to the right that God 
has willed and the ordinance that God has established; he is 
to desire the recompense due to it, i. e., its punishment, in 
order to make reparation to this holy and inviolable ordi- 
nance. He is not merely to commit to God, but also to 
beseech from God, the revelation of his judicial righteous- 
ness to the glory of his holy name, in presence of wilful 
dishonor done to that name, whether the dishonor be done 
by himself, or by another. The apostolic dictum in this 
passage does not set aside, but confirms the prayers against 
enemies, in the so-called imprecatory psalms. Compare 
Luke ix. 5; 2 Thess. i. 6; 2 Tim. iv. 14; 1 Pet. ii. 23; Rev. 
vi. 10, and the striking remarks of Hengstenberg in his Com- 
mentary on the Psalms, III., app. Ixx.” (Philippi in loco). 
yéypamrar] in Deut. xxxii. 35. St. Paul adds Aé€yer kvpcos. 
Compare xiv. 11; 1 Cor. xiv. 21; 2 Cor. vi. 17. éuot] Com- 
pare Heb. x. 30. The dative of possession, here, implies ex- 
clusiveness: “to me only.” The infliction of retribution, or 
punishment in distinction from chastisement, belongs to God 
alone. Punishment, in the restricted and proper sense, is 
solely for reguital, and does not aim at the improvement 
of the criminal. Consequently, punishment is in its own 
nature endless, and the Supreme Being is the only one who 
may inflict it. Man has no right to punish except as it is 
delegated to him, in the office of a magistrate. In this case, 
man discharges a divine and not a human function. 


Ver. 20 is a citation from Prov. xxv. 21, 22, literally from 
the Septuagint, which agrees with the Hebrew, dAAa éay is 


874 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


* Gra "Hav rwewa 0 éeyIpds cov, Wouive avTov: éap 
Supa, worl avTov: TodTO yap ToLwy dvIpaKas Tupos cw- 
pevoess el THY Kepariy avTod. ™ wy ViK® UO TOD KaKod, 
aru vika év TA AyAIG TO KaKoV. 


supported by SAB Copt., Vulg., Lachm., Tisch. éay ovv is the 
reading of DEL Peshito, Ath. 4Ada] “do not wreak your 
revenge, but, on the contrary,” etc. If otv be adopted, then 
the injunction in this verse is a deduction from the fact that 
retribution belongs exclusively to God. avdpaxas, etc.] gives 
the motive for showing kindness to an enemy. ‘ Coals of 
fire” is a metaphor for keen anguish. Compare the Arabic 
phrases, ‘‘coals in the heart,” and “fire in the liver.” Ex- 
planations: 1. The remorse awakened by this unmerited 
kindness, resulting, perhaps, in repentance (Origen, Augus- 
tine, Jerome, Ambrose, Erasmus, Luther, Wolfius, Bengel, 
Tholuck, De Wette, Olshausen, Fritzsche, Philippi, Hodge, 
Alford). 2. The divine retribution, resulting from surren- 
dering the case into God’s hands ( Chrysostom, Theodoret, © 
Theophylact, Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Hengstenberg). The 
first is preferable, because the ‘“‘coals of fire” are immedi- 
ately connected with the “feeding” and “ giving drink.” 


VER. 21. tod Kaxod| the enemy’s evil, i.e. ‘‘Do not allow 
yourself to be overcome by the wickedness of your adver- 
sary; as would be the case, if you suffered yourself to be 
exasperated by him to personal revenge.” daAAd, ete.] “ but, 
on the contrary, overcome your enemy’s wickedness by your 
kindness, which will awaken his remorse and sorrow.” This 
verse recapitulates the sentiment of verses 19 and 20. 


CHAPTER XIII. 


‘Tlaca xpuyy eEovolas imepeyotcais trotaccécto. 
> 4 3 > i > % e \ lo! ec \ 5S ig \ 
ov yap éotw eovola et pn bd Jeov, ai Sé odcat io 


Tue apostle passes now, in verses 1—7, to the Christian’s 
duties toward the State. He may have been led to this, in 
part, by the seditious and revolutionary temper of the Jew, 
which showed itself occasionally in open rebellion against 
the Roman authority, Acts v. 37. But the principal reason 
was of a general nature. He would lay down principles for 
the Church universal, in all time, and in reference to govern- 
ment in the abstract. 


Ver. 1. raca Wy] is equivalent to was dvIpwros. Com- 
pare ii. 9. efovelats trepexovoais] “ authorities above, or over 
him.” The idea of sovereignty and supremacy is implied. 
Government supposes an authority higher than that of the 
governed. Law is superior to the subject of law. Compare 
1 Tim. ii. 2; 1 Pet. ii.13. troraccécIw] denotes voluntary 
self-subjection. Compare Luke 11. 51; 1 Cor. xvi. 16; Eph. 
v. 22 sq.; Titus ii. 5. Unwilling obedience to the govern- 
ment is not Christian virtue. ov yap, etc.] assigns the reason 
for obeying the civil authority: viz., because of its divine 
origin. Even bad governments are not excepted: “there is 
mo authority, except by and from God.” The fact that an 
earthly government may be corrupt and tyrannical does not 
disprove the divine origin of government; any more than the 
fact that parents may be unfaithful to their duties proves 


376 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


that the family is not divinely originated; or the fact that a 
particular church may become corrupt proves that the church 
is not divine in its source. St. Paul, however, does not teach, 
here, that any degree of tyranny, whatever, is to be sub- 
mitted to by a Christian. If the government attempt to 
force him to violate a divine command, for example to desist 
from preaching the gospel, or to take part in pagan worship, 
he must resist even unto death. See Acts iv. 19; v. 29. 
Most of the apostles suffered martyrdom for this principle. 
But in respect to ‘things pertaining only to this life” 
(1 Cor. vi. 4), and in cases in which the rights of conscience 
and religious convictions were not infringed upon, both 
Christ and his apostles taught that injustice, and even tyr- 
anny, should be submitted to, rather than that revolutionary 
resistance be made. And this, because merely earthly liber- 
ty, and the rights of property, are of secondary consideration. 
The same rule applies to the relation of the individual to the 
State, in this case, that applies to the relation between man 
and man. Ifa Christian is defrauded of his property by a fel- 
low believer, he ought to “take the wrong, and suffer himself 
to be defrauded,” rather than “ go to law one with another,” 
1 Cor. vi. 7, In like manner, in regard to merely worldly 
good, the Christian should forego his rights and allow him- 
self to be ill-treated even by the government under which he 
lives, rather than organize a rebellion’and bring on war with 
its untold evils. Political freedom is one of the most valu- 
able of merely earthly blessings; and political slavery is one 
of the greatest of merely earthly evils. Yet Christ and his 
apostles nowhere teach or imply, that either individual or 
organized action was justifiable, even under the tyranny of 
Rome, in order to obtain the former, or abolish the latter. 
On the contrary, they dissuade from and forbid it. Compare 
Mat. xvii. 24-27; xxii. 17-21; 1 Cor. vii. 21, 22; 1 Tim. vi. 1: 
tx] is the reading of NABL Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles; dm 


CHAPTER XIII. 2, 3. Olt 


lel c 
Seod Teraypévar ciciv. * @aTE 0 avTLtTacoomevos TH éEov- 
/ a n a a J MA e Nee / 
cia TH Tod Jcod Svatayh avIéotnKev* oi 66 avIeaTHKOTES 
éauTois Kpiua Ajovta. * ot yap apyovTes ovK eioly 
PoBos 7TH ayato Epyy, Adda TO Kako. Eres S6 wn Go- 


that of DEF Receptus. otca:] is the reading of NABDF 
Copt., Aith., Vulg.; the Receptus with EL Peshito add 
efovaia, which is superfluous, being understood as matter of 
course. The word denotes an “actually existing ” authority: 
a government de facto, though possibly not de jure, in all 
respects. teraypévar] the fact that a civil government. is 
organized, and in actual operation, is an evidence that God 
has so appointed, in his providence. The plural implies 
that there are varieties in the forms of human government. 
“Christianity gives its sanction not exclusively to one defi- 
nite form of government, but to the form of government 
actually subsisting at any time, and guards it against revo- 
lutionary attempts.” Philippi in loco. 


Ver. 2. doe] “so that;” as a consequence from the fact 
that the existing authorities are ordained by God.  ayvturac- 
aopevos| denotes primarily a drawing up in battle array, but 
is here employed in the general signification of opposition, 
or resistance. Compare Acts xviii. 6; James iv. 6. év3éory- 
kev] is equivalent to dvtirdccera. Compare ix. 19.  xpipa] 
the condemnation of God, i. e., whose ordinance they have 
resisted. 


Ver. 3 connects with verse 1 (Calvin, Tholuck, Philippi, 
Hodge), and assigns an additional reason for obedience, viz., 
that government is not only an ordinance of God, but a 
beneficial ordinance. Meyer connects with verse 2, so that 
verse 3 explains the mode in which God condemns, viz., 
through the civil authority. dyaId épyw, etc.] is supported 
by SABDF Copt., Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. The Receptus, 


378 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


r \ 3 , \ 3 x a \ ae. wv 
BeicSat tiv éEovciav ; TO ayadov Tote, Kai E€eus érawvov 
> 3 lol 4 A \ be 4 > ‘ > NN ) , \ 
€& avtis* * Jeod yap SudKovos éotw col eis TO ayadov. éav 
dé TO KaKov Tains, PoBod* ov yap EiKH THY payaLpay Ho- 
pel: Seod yap SudKxoves éotw ExdwKos els Opyiy TO TO Ka- 
Kov TpadcoovTt. ° OL0 avdyKn UToTdocETIaL, Ob pmovov did 
THY Opynv, GAAA Kat OLa THY GuvElonow. * dia TOdTO Yap 


with EL Peshito, reads rév éyadwv épyav, ete. 62] is transi- 
tive: “now, do you desire,” etc. Luther, Tholuck, Philippi, 
Lange, construe as a hypothetical sentence: “Thou desirest 
not to be afraid of the authority. I put the case.” ézawov]} 
Compare 1 Pet. ii. 14. Grotius remarks that at the time 
when St. Paul wrote this, Nero was not persecuting the 
Christians. But the principle is a generalone. ‘‘ Damnatio 
malorum laus est bonorum ” (Pelagius). 


Vir. 4. SdidKovds eorw] sc. 7 eEovoia: eis 7d dyaddov] “for 
your advantage,” in the way of praise and protection. Com- 
pare 1 Tim.ii. 2. eixy] not for mere show, but for use, when 
required. dxatpav| the sword is the symbol of the magis- 
trate’s power to put to death.  éxdios| sc. dy: not “re- 
venger” (Eng. Ver.), but “avenger,” in modern English, 
In the earlier usage, retributive justice was denominated 
both “revenging,” and “vindictive.” eis dpyjv] i. e., eis 7d 
emipgpev dpyyv. “ Wrath” is here put for its effect, viz.: 
punishment. 


Ver. 5 contains an inference, introduced by &#, from the 
statements in verses 1-4, dvayxy] denotes a moral necessity 
founded in the nature both of government and of man. 
trorarcerJar] is middle: “to submit yourselves.” 8&& rv 
opyjv| a prudential motive is allowable. The fear of punish- 
ment, like “the respect to the recompense of reward” (Heb. 
xi. 26), has its proper place in morals. It is, however, a sub- 
ordinate place. GANG Kai dua rHv ovveidyow] the command of 


CHAPTER XIII. 6, 7. 3879 


\ a 
Kal opouvs Tereite* AecToupyol yap Jeod eialy els adTo 
ToOUTO TpocKapTepourtes. "amddoTe TasTWW TAS OEtdas, 


conscience is the principal reason for voluntary subjection to 
lawful authority. But as conscience is the voice of God in 
the soul, this reason for obedience is equivalent to that given 
in 1 Pet. ii. 18: “submit yourselves to every ordinance of 


aN \ , 9 
man 6a Tov Kvptov. 


Vur. 6 is best connected, not with verses 1-4 (Calvin, 
De Wette, Philippi), but with verse 5 (Meyer). otro] viz.: 
the fear of punishment, and the command of conscience. 
yap| supposes an ellipsis; viz., “you are thus submitting 
yourselves, for you are paying taxes.” kat] ‘ also,” in addi- 
tion to other acts of obedience to the government.  TeActre] 
is not imperative (Eng. Vers., Tholuck, Stuart, Hodge), but 
indicative (Chrysost., Theophylact, Vulgate, Calvin, Beza, 
De Wette, Meyer, Lange, Philippi). Were it imperative, 
the sentence would have been introduced by otv rather than 
yap, which does not well agree with the imperative. And 
furthermore, the command to pay tribute, is given, by way 
of reiteration and emphasis, in the next verse. To pay taxes 
is one of the most conclusive evidences of submission to the 
government. Aerovpyoi Jeod] is the predicate. The subject is 
ot understood, referring to apxovres in verse 3. Actroupyds Is a 
term that denotes the temple service of the priests, Heb. i. 7; 
viii. 2. It is here applied to the tax-gatherers, who as officers 
of a government that has been ordained of God are, in this 
sense, his attendants or “ ministers.” yap] introduces the 
reason why they are paying tribute. otro] viz.: the collec- 
tion of taxes. mpooxaprepodyres] denotes steady attention, 
Compare xii. 12. 


Ver. 7 summarizes and repeats, for the sake of emphasis, 
the exhortations in verses 1-6. dodote] is followed by otv 


380 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


P A \ f \ f lal \ ls \ I fel \ 
T® Tov popov tov dopov, TH TO TENOS TO TEAOS, TH TOV 
poPov Tov ddBov, TS THY Tiay THY TLYLHAD. 
° Mndevt wndev opeinrere, eb fi) TO GANHAOUS ayaTrav* 6 


yap ayare@v tov Erepov, vdwov TeTArpoxev. ° TO yap ov 


in the Peshito, Receptus, FL; which is omitted by SBD 
Copt., Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. 76] sc. dmavrotvtt, which, 
as Meyer remarks, wiil suit ¢éSov and tipyv, as well as gopov 
and réAos; because magistrates (to whom waou refers) require 
or demand respect and honor. dpov| “tribute” is the land 
and capitation tax, Luke xx. 22. édos] “custom ” (vectiga- 
lia) is the tax on merchandise. The apostle mentions taxes 
first in the order, because he has already singled this out as 
an evidence of submission to the civil authority, and also, 
perhaps, because of the Jewish disposition to dispute this 
demand from a Gentile government. Compare Mat. xvii. 
24-27; xxii. 17. qofov and tynv] denote the honor due to 
judges and the higher civil authorities. 


Ver. 8 begins a new paragraph (verses 8-14), in which 
the writer returns to the duty of Christians toward society 
generally, which was previously spoken of in xi, 14-21. 
pyodevi] is universal, including both the church and the world. 
Indebtedness must be discharged toward all mankind. « py 
ayarav] “ By its very nature, love is a duty which when dis- 
charged is not discharged ; since he does not truly love who 
loves for the sake of ceasing from loving, and in order to 
relieve himself from the duty of love.” Philippi. Similarly, 
Augustine remarks: “Love is still due, even when it has 
been rendered, because there will never be a time when it is 
not to be rendered. The obligation to love is not nullified, 
but multiplied, by the bestowment of love.” 6 yap, ete.] 
Compare Mat. xxii. 37-40. 


Ver. 9 corroborates the statement in verse 8, by showing 


CHAPTER XIII. 10, 11. 3881 


A > / > / > bs / at 
Mowyevoels, ov hovevocis, ov KAeYels, OVE eTIIUENTELS, Kat 
el Tis éTépa EvTOAH, EV TH NOYO TOUT@D avakepadalodTat, 
’ a? / ‘ / e Tou cS / 
éy T@ Ayamrnoels TOV TANTLOV GOV WS GEaUTOD.- 1) ayaTn 

A / \ > 5) , , = t € 
TO TAHTloV KaKOV ovK EpydleTaL* TANPwWLA OY VoOMoV 1) 
% / lal IN \ / ae oe yy ¢ an 
ayarrn. ™ Kai ToUTO ElddTES TOV KaLpOV, OTL Mpa On Las 


that all the particular statutes of the decalogue relating to 
one’s fellow man are summed in the command, to love him 
as one’s self. ov Ades] is followed by ob Pevdopaprupycets 
in Copt., Alth., Receptus ; which is omitted in ABDEFGL 
Peshito, Sahidic, Lachm., Tisch. «i tus érépa évroAy| sc. ev TO 
vouw eoriv. dvaxepadaoirac] is “ recapitulated,” or ‘ brought 
under one head” (xedady). ev To] (“namely”) is omitted in 
BFG Itala, Vulgate, and bracketted by Lachm., and Tre- 
gelles ; it is found in SADL Tisch. ceavrov] FGL Receptus 
read éavrov, which is sometimes used for the second person. 
See Winer in loco. 


Ver. 10. xaxov ovd« épyaerar| St. Paul employs the negative 
form, because of the negatives in the statutes he has cited. 
But the positive is implied: ‘ Love doeth good ” (xpycreverat), 
1 Cor. xiii. 4. oty| introduces the conclusion drawn from the 
preceding analysis of the law, viz.: that love is the complete 
fulfilment of the law. The doctrine of justification by works 
finds no support in this text ; because it does not settle the 
question of fact, whether any man, in a perfect manner, loves 
God supremely and his neighbor as himself. 5 


Ver. 11. kai rotro] “and this too,” or “especially.” rodro 
refers to the injunction in verse 8 with the explanation in 
verses 9and 10. It introduces the motive to obey which 
follows. There is no need of supplying wowpev or vrovetre 
(Bengel, Tholuck). Compare 1 Cor. v.6,8; Eph. ii. $8; Phil. 
i. 28; Heb. xi. 12. The more common usage in the classics 
is Kal ratra, «iddres| “since,” or “because” we know. tov 


382 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


kaipov] the “period”: not xpdves, time generally. The pecu- 
liarity of the season or period is meant. dpa] se. éoriv. the 
“hour,” or particular point, in the period. 37] “now, at 
length,” without waiting any longer. Compare 70¢ zor, i. 10. 
It qualifies éyepSyva. tuas] is the reading of NABO, Tisch. 
The Receptus, DEFGL, Peshito, Vulg., Sahidic, Coptic, 
Lachm. read #as. vmvov| sleep is a common figure for the 
apathy of sin. Compare Eph. v. 14; 1 Thess. v. 6. Believers 
having remainders of sin have remainders of spiritual lethargy, 
against which they must watch and strive. ydp] introduces 
the reason why it is the hour for them to awake. 7u0v] may be 
connected with owrypiay (Vulgate, Eng. Ver., Luther, Hodge); 
or with éyy’repov (Calvin, Meyer, Philippi, who cite x. 8). 
cwrnpia] 1. The completion of redemption in eternity, in 
sinless perfection and the glorified body (Theodore Mops., 
Calvin, Calovius, Flatt, Stuart, Hodge). 2. The second ad- 
vent of Christ, when believers shall be made perfect and 
clothed with the resurrection body (De Wette, Olshausen, 
Meyer, Philippi, Lange, Alford). The first explanation is 
preferable, because émpdveia and rapovoia are the settled terms 
for the advent, and there is no instance in which owrypia is 
put for it. The apostle exhorts believers to watchfulness, 
because they are nearer the end of the Christian race and 
fight than they were when they first began it. If they had 
made no progress, but were as far off from the goal as ever, 
they would have no motive to struggle. ‘ Nearer is salva- 
tion now, to us, than at that time when we began to believe.” 
Calvin in loco. The second view, however, may be adopted, 
without maintaining that St. Paul mistakenly expected the 
Parousia in his own life-time, as is asserted by De Wette and 
Meyer. Philippi, who explains cwrypia by the Lord’s second 
coming, remarks that the rapid spread of Christianity may 
have given St. Paul reason to hope that the Lord’s return 
might occur in his own day, but did not give him the certainty 


CHAPTER XIII. 12. 383 


> e > a a \ b] & 2 lal CS / 
€& Umvou eyepIihvat viv yap éyyvTEpov tuoV 1 TwTNPLA 
A O° > s 1g ¢ \ r ¢ Ne lbeh a7 +” 

OTe éemiaTevoapey. 1) VUE TpoéKoer, 1) SE TLEépa iiy- 


that it would; because the particular time of this advent is 
expressly stated to be unrevealed, and absolutely unknown 
to man, Mark xiii. 32. “‘ The Parousia known as objectively 
near in the divine view, might also have seemed to be sub- 
jectively near in human expectation. But there would be an 
error in identifying the latter with the former. No sooner 
did this error appear, than the apostles at once corrected it, 
2 Thess. ii, 1 sq.; 2 Pet. ili. 1 sq. Had St. Paul been asked 
whether he knew if he or any of his contemporaries would 
survive till the return of Christ, with the same inspired cer- 
tainty with which he knew the general fact of that return, 
he would have replied in the negative.” Similarly Alford 
remarks, that ‘‘the fact that the nearness or the distance of 
the day of Christ’s coming was unknown to the apostles, in 
no way affects the prophetic announcements of God’s Spirit 
by them, concerning its preceding and accompanying  cir- 
cumstances. The ‘day and the hour’ formed no part of 
their inspiration; the details of the event did.” Similarly 
Tholuck. dre émucteicopev] when we believed in Christ, and 
became Christians, Acts xix. 2; 1 Cor. iii. 5. 


Ver. 12. 9 rdf, etc.] the night is the time for sleep, and 
for sin, because of the darkness, 1 Thess. v. 7. 7 de jpuepa| 
the day is the time for work, and for holiness, because of the 
light, Job xxiv. 15-17; John iii. 19-21; 1 Thess. v. 5, 8. 
“The time of sin and sorrow is nearly over (zpoéxoWev), and 
that of holiness and happiness is at hand (jyyev).” Hodge 
in loco, The other explanation of cwrypia fails here: the 
apostle could not with certainty say that the Parousia was 
“at hand,” in the sense of occurring in the life-time of those 
to whom he wrote. But, since the believer’s death brings 


384 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


’ tA Lo \ SA rc , 3 7, 
yixev. aTrodapueta odv Ta Epya TOV oKOTOUS, évdvcmopEda 
Sé Ta OTAA TOD pwTds. “ ws ev Huépa EeloynudVaS Trept- 

/ , ' 
TATHTWLEV, [1) KOMOLS Kal Medals, 1) KOLTALS Kal aoE- 


him into perfect holiness and blessedness, he could speak of 
“salvation,” in the ordinary New Testament use of the term, 
as being certainly “at hand.” droJapeda| is the opposite of 
évovcwpeta, and represents the works of darkness as night- 
garments, which on the approach of day are to be taken off. 
ovv | namely, because of the approaching holiness and blessed- 
ness of the next life, which the believer will so soon enter 
upon. That this is one of the most powerful and effective 
motives for resisting sin, the perusal of Howe’s “ Blessedness 
of the Righteous” will convince any one. é] is the reading 
of ABCD Copt., Griesbach, Lachm., Tisch. It denotes mere- 
ly the contrast. The Receptus, with FL Peshito, reads cal; & 
omits the conjunction altogether. dda] the figure is changed 
from clothing to armor, because of the fight to which beliey- 
ers are exhorted. Compare Eph. vi. 13 sq. 


Ver. 13. edoyypdvws| becomingly; with decorum, 1 Cor. vii. 
35; xiv. 40; 1 Thess. iv. 12. Kwpors Kai peas] night revel- 
lings and carousals, Gal. v. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 3. Kotrats Kat doed- 
yelars| venery and wantonness. ‘“ Abstract nouns in the 
plural denote the various expressions, evidences, outbreaks, 
and concrete manifestations generally, of the quality ex- 
pressed by the singular.” Winer in loco. The first two 
terms relate to sins of gluttony and drunkenness; the last 
two, to sins of licentiousness. They are naturally connected: 
“sine Cerere et Baccho Venus friget.” Ovid. They are also 
sins of the night: ‘nox et amor vinumque nihil moderabile 
suadent.” Ovid, Amor., I. v.59. That St. Paul was com- 
pelled to warn Christian believers against this class of sins, 
does not prove that the primitive Christian life and charac- 


fal 


CHAPTER XIII. 14. BSS: 


tyelaus, gn epids Kal Gyro, “ adrAa évdvcacIe Tov KUpLov 
> n an an 
Inooiv Xpictov, cal Tis capKos Tpovotav pur) Trovetate eis 
emiJupias. 


ter was as a whole inferior to that of the modern church. 
The paganism from which the first Christians had been con- 
verted left habits of life that could not be instantaneously 
and entirely extirpated. In estimating the energy of divine 
grace in the soul, the line of Burns is to be remembered: 


‘* We know not what’s 7’¢sisted.” 


The primitive church was more under the influence of the 
“lust of the flesh ” than of the “ pride of life;” the modern 
church is more under the influence of the “pride of life” 
than of the “lust of the flesh.” But pride is as great a sin, 
in the sight of God, as sensuality. This should be consid- 
ered, in forming an estimate of some of the modern mission- 
ary churches. pide cat ¢yAw] quarrelling and jealousy are 
naturally connected with the vices just mentioned. The 
Memoirs of fashionable and court life, like those of St. 
Simon and Grammont illustrate this. 


Ver. 14. evdvcac3e tov xipiov| the figure denotes the most 
intimate union and appropriation. See Gal. ii. 27; Eph. iv. 
24; Coloss. iii. 10, 12; Luke xxiv. 49; 1 Cor. xv. 53, 54; 2 Cor. 
veaeeevness, v. 8; Job xxix. 14; Isa. 9; Ezek. xxvi. 16. 
Compare also Homer’s dvceo 8 aAxnyy, Il. xix. 36. capkos] 1. is 
employed in the physical sense, to denote the sensuous na- 
ture (“‘die lebendige Materie des cépa,” Meyer), in distinction 
from the rational. The apostle does not forbid all provision 
for the flesh, but only such provision as is lustful. ‘“‘ He does 
not forbid to drink, but to get drunk; he does not forbid mar- 
riage, but fornication” (Chrysost., Luther, Calvin, De Wette, 
Meyer, Philippi). 2. cdpé is employed in the ethical significa- 

17 


386 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


tion of the whole man as corrupt; so that a total prohibition of 
a provision for the flesh is meant (Eng. Ver., Fritzsche, Stuart, 
Hodge, Alford). The latter view is favored by the general 
signification of oapg in this Epistle. St. Paul employs the 
term to denote, not the sensuous in distinction from the 
rational nature, but the entire man; and not that which is 
created and innocent, but that which is fallen and sinful. 
Compare viii. 3-9, 12 et alia. mpdvovay py moretoJe| is equiva- 
lent to yy mpovoeiode: “do not provide for.” Compare xii. 
17; 1 Tim. v. 8. eis émuduuias| denotes the intention: ‘so 
that lusts may be excited.” Compare Mat. v. 28. Sinful 
lusts are the natural characteristics of the sinful capé. There 
are remainders of odpé in the believer (chapters vii., vili.), 
and he must not do anything to stir them up. These were 
the verses that struck the eye of Augustine when the voice 
said to him: ‘“ Tolle, lege.” Confessions, viii. 12. 


CHAPTER XIV. 


Sr. Paut now resumes the consideration of the believer’s 
duties toward the Church, which was interrupted in xu. 14 
by a transition to his duties toward Society. He continues 
the subject down to xv. 13. The particular duty which he 
considers relates to differences of opinion, among believers, 
respecting points not essential to salvation. The difference 
of sentiment related to abstinence from flesh (verses 2, 21), 
from wine (verse 21), and the observance of Jewish sacred 
days (verse 5). The principal views are the following: 1. 
The “weak in faith” held that the Mosaic law respecting 
flesh, wine, and sacred days, was still obligatory upon 
Christians (Origen, Chrysost., Theodoret, Jerome, Calovius, 
Reiche). 2. The “weak in faith,” though believing that the 
Mosaic ceremonial statutes were no longer binding, yet 
thought that abstinence from the sacrificial-flesh and liba- 
tion-wine of the pagan, sold in the market, was obligatory — 
(Clem. Alex., Ambrose, Augustine, Michaelis, Flatt, Nean- 
der, Tholuck, Philippi). This view is favored by a com- 
parison with 1 Cor. viii. 10; x. 19-23, where the same need- 
less but well-intended scrupulousness appears. 3. The third 
view places the abstinence upon both grounds (Erasmus, 
Riickert, De Wette). This latter is preferable, because all 
the data cannot be brought under either view alone. Both 
Jewish and Gentile-Christians are advised and enjoined by 
St. Paul. The Jewish-Christian who was “weak in the 
faith ” relied upon Christ’s sacrifice for justification (other- 
wise he would not have even a weak faith); but from his 


388 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


previous education and training in Judaism, and an imper- 
fect apprehension of Christianity (xv. 1; 1 Cor. viii. 7, 10,- 
11), supposed that the distinction between clean and unclean 
meats, and sacred and secular days, was still valid and should 
be observed. His error was not legalism proper, but asceticism. 
Had he, with the carnal Jew, maintained that salvation de- 
pended upon the observance of the ceremonial law, the apos- 
tle would have spoken in the language of stern condemna- 
tion, as he does in Gal. i. 6; 11. 3-5, 14-17; v. 1, 2. Some of 
the Gentile-Christians, on the other hand, remembering the 
abominations of that idolatry from which they had been con- 
verted, supposed that contact with paganism in any form 
whatever must be avoided, and hence abstained from sacri- 
ficial meat and wine offered for sale. These also were evan- 
gelical though “ weak” believers; relying for salvation upon 
Christ, but lacking the spiritual insight to perceive that “an 
idol is nothing in the world” (1 Cor. vii. 4), Upon both 
sides then, Jewish and Gentile, there were conscientious 
scruples, which though not really valid, were yet to be 
respected. From St. Paul’s point of view, there was “ noth- 
ing unclean of itself” (xiv. 14), and an idol was a nonentity 
to which the believer ought to have not the slightest refer- 
ence; yet St. Paul expressly says that he shall respect the 
scruples of such of his brethren as were not yet sufficiently 
enlightened to see as he saw (xiv. 21, 22; 1 Cor. viii. 13). 
It must not be supposed that these ‘weak brethren” con- 
stituted a majority of the Roman church. The great body 
of both Jewish and Gentile believers in the congregation, 
probably, held the views of the apostle himself, and were 
“strong” in the faith (xv. 1). 


Ver. 1. ricra] justifying faith. These persons, though 
relying upon Christ for salvation, were weakened in their 
reliance by fears and anxieties, which led them to ascetic 


CHAPTER XIV. 1. 380 


‘Tov 8& dcSevoivta th Tioter mpocdapBdverde, 1) 
eis Ovaxpicers Stadoyicnav. * Os pwev TioTever ayetv 
p 


opinions and practices. There is in believers generally more 
or less of this legal element, which interferes with boldness 
and assurance of faith. It is seen in the experience of a 
devout Roman Catholic like Pascal. It arises from ‘ the 
want of an intelligent and firm conviction of the gratuitous 
nature of justification, and of the spirituality of the gospel.” 
Hodge in loco. zpoodapBaverde| More than reception into 
the church is meant; for the weak brother was already in 
the church. ‘ Welcome him to your affectionate and help- 
ful acquaintance and communion.”  d:axpioes diadoyopav] 
“decisions of questions:” duaxpivey signifies to pass judg- 
ment, Mat. xvi. 3; to decide, 1 Cor. vi. 5. Compare also 
1 Cor. xii. 10; Heb. v. 14. duadoyiopds denotes speculations 
feet Cor. ii..20), or disputings (Phil. i, 14). ‘The 
strong” should not attempt to decide the points of differ- 
ence between themselves and the “ weak,” by inviting the 
“weak” to discuss them with them. ‘‘ Non sumentes vobis 
dijudicandas ipsorum cogitationes.” Grotius. By waiving 
the matters in dispute, and dwelling upon the cardinal truth 
of faith in Christ, they would in the end convert the weak 
brother into a strong one. The history of the early Jewish- 
Christians shows, that by this kindly and forbearing mode 
of treatment they were either brought over to a full and free 
evangelism and were merged in the church, like the Naza- 
renes, or else lapsed down upon an anti-evangelical and 
hostile position, like the Ebionite. 


Ver. 2 describes the difference between the strong and 
the weak believer. murrever] is equivalent to miorw exer: “he 
has such a faith that he eats.” Compare Acts xiv. 9. 6 d¢] 
not 6s be: “the other” (compare verse 5); but 6 dodevar ; 


390 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


TavrTa, 0 6€ dotevav Adyava éEcFic. “0 éoSiwv Tov pi) 
5] / \ > 4 c \ \ > ‘ x > ‘A 
éctiovra pr eE€oudteveiTm* Oo O€ pn éeoSiwv Tov éaSiovta 
\ 4 c / \ : ae / 4 \ %, cs eae 
BN KpwweT@* O Jeds yap avTOV TpodEAdBeTO. * ad Tis ci O 
Kpivav GNNOTPLOV OLKETHY ; TH (Oi KUpi@ OTHKEL 7) TWiTTEL* 


“the weak.” XAdxava éodier| the weak brother ate bread and 
vegetable food, and no flesh of unclean animals, no meat 
offered to idols, and no meat of clean animals on the sacred 
days (Reiche, Neander, Tholuck, Philippi). Meyer inter- 
prets the phrase as excluding flesh altogether. 


Ver. 3 gives the rule for both parties. éfovJeveitrw] de- 
notes disdain or contempt for the weak brother, as narrow 
and superstitious. 6 6 py| is the reading of SABCD 
Lachm., Tisch. The Receptus, with EL Peshito, Sahidic, 
AXth., Vulgate, reads cat 6 py. xpwéerw| the weak brother 
must not pass a condemning judgment upon the strong, as 
lacking in Christian earnestness and fidelity. yap] introduces 
the reason, viz.: because Christ has received the “strong” 
as a true disciple. 


Ver. 4. od tis &] Compare ix. 20; James iv. 12. 6 xpivor| 
refers to uy Kpwérw, verse 3, and consequently to the weak in 
faith (Meyer, Philippi), and not to both parties (Tholuck, 
Hodge). dAAdrpuor oixérnv] judgment of a servant belongs to 
the master alone; who in this case is God, and not man. 
o7yxet| to stand in the judgment is to be acquitted. Com- 
pare Ps.i.5; Luke xxi. 36; Rev. vi. 17. aimre| to fall in 
the judgment is to be condemned; causa cadere. oradyoerat] 
is more comprehensive in its signification, here, than in the 
preceding clause. It denotes not merely the pronunciation 
of a favorable judgment, but also support in that course of 
life and conduct which results in a favorable judgment. The 
“strong” shall be enabled by God’s grace to stand in faith 
and obedience, and thereby in the final judgment. Compare 


CIIAPTER XIV. 6, 6. 391 


, , a \ ' , a ss 5 A 
oTadnoetat dé, Suvated yap 0 KUpLos oThaoat avTov. * Os 
Mev Kpiver uépav Tap iuépav, ds dé Kpiver TacaY ipépav’ 
oe > a ons , fe A \ 
ExaoTos ev TH lOl@ vot TANpodopesdo. 0 dpovav HV 


1 Cor. x. 12. duvaret yap] is the reading of SABCDF Lachm., 
Tisch., Tregelles. Compare 2 Cor. xii. 3. The Receptus, 
with L, reads dvvaros yap éotw. kvpios] is the reading of SABC 
Peshito, Sahidic, Coptic, th., Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. 
The Receptus, with DEFL, reads Jeos. 


Ver. 5 relates to the second point of difference, the ob- 
servance of the Jewish fasts and festivals. ap’] has a com- 
parative force, as in i. 25; Luke xiii. 2; Heb. 1.4. “One 
judges that one day is above, or superior to another.” St. 
Paul refers, here, to the ordinary Jewish sacred days, as in 
Gal. iv. 10; Col. ii. 16. The Lord’s day was never regarded 
by the apostles, or by the Primitive Church, as a common 
Jewish festival; and, consequently, this and the following 
statements have no reference to the Christian Sabbath, as 
some (Philippi, Alford) maintain. The Jewish Sabbath itself 
was distinguished from the other sacred days of Judaism, by 
being made a part of the moral law, or decalogue, while the 
secondary holy-days were provisions of the ceremonial law 
only. macav jpépav| sc. tony civac (not mapa), idiw vot mAnpo- 
dopeicIw| this is the general principle of action, in reference 
to points not essential to salvation. ‘‘One man should not 
be forced to act according to another man’s conscientious 
scruples, but every one should be satisfied in his own mind, 
and be careful not to do what he thinks to be wrong.” 
Hodge in loco, 


Ver. 6 assigns the reason, introduced by yap, for the 
preceding rule of action, viz.: that the particular person, 
whether he be weak or strong in the faith, has reference to 
the Lord in what he does, and believes that he is serving 


3892 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


e ta y ° \ € > 4 iy > Si > 

nuépav Kupio dpovel. Kal 0 eadiwv Kupip éodier, evya- 
an a nr c 

plotel yap T@ Jew Kal Oo pn éotimy Kupiw ovK éodier 

Kal evyapiaTel TO Jem. " OvOEls Yap TuoV EavTO GF, Kal 


him by his particular course of conduct. If this be the be- 
liever’s actual conviction, he must not be despised for his 
scruples, if he is one of the ‘‘ weak,” or censured for his free- 


dom, if he is one of the “strong.” 


xupiw| for the service and 
honor of the Lord. The reference is to Christ, as verse 9 
shows (Meyer, Philippi). After ¢pove?, the Receptus, with L 
Peshito, Eng. Ver., adds the clause xai 6 pi) dpovav thy Hpepav 
Kipi» ov dpovet. It is omitted by SABCDEFG Copt., Ath., 
Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. «dxapiore?] refers to the thanks 
given before the meal, Deut. viii. 10; Mat. xiv. 19; xv. 36; 
xxvl. 26; 1 Cor. x. 30; 1 Tim. iv. 4, 5. xkupiw ot« éodie| the 
abstinence, as well as the partaking, is out of regard to the 
honor and service of Christ. xal edyapicret] the thanksgiving 
in this case is, of course, not for the meat which is not 
eaten, but for the “herbs” which are. This meal, like the 
other, is accompanied with thanksgiving to God. 


Ver. 7. éavrd] the dative of advantage, like xvpiw. No 
Christian lives for his own honor and service. The greater 
includes the less. Life and death stand for the sum total of 
human existence. Whoever has devoted himself to the Lord 
completely, has of course devoted himself to him in the de- 
tails of eating and abstinence. The reference is not to the 
objective fact that life and death are in the Lord’s hand, 
which is true of the unbeliever as well as of the believer; 
but to the subjective purpose, and its execution, of conse- 
crating the whole existence, which is true only of the be- 
liever. dmodvyocxet| Compare Phil. i. 20; Rev. xiv. 13. The 
believer serves Christ in his death, as truly as in his life. To 
die in faith honors the Redeemer as much as does any active 


CHAPTER XIV. 8-10. 3893 


b) \ © Le] > Ve Bish A lal A vA 
ovdels EavT@ aTroduicKe’ * édv Te yap CHpev, TO Kupio 
Cauev, €ay TE aTrodvicKwpEV, TO KUpia aTrodvncKoper. 
éav Te ovv Capev édv TE aTTOSUTKMpEV, TOD KUpiov éopév. 
9 > fal \ \ > lA \ ” (7 \ 

eis TodTO yap Xpiotos anétavey Kal eCnoev, wa Kal 
vexpov Kal Covtwy Kupievon. “ov bé Ti Kpivers TOV 


service for him. ‘‘ Hadem ars moriendi, que vivendi.” Ben- 


gel. 

Vor. 8 repeats in a positive form, and emphasizes, what 
has been said in a negative form, in verse 7. éav Te, etc. . . 
édv ve, etc.| “both if,” etc. . . “and if,” etc.: in one case as 
much as in the other. tov kvpiov| is the genitive of posses- 
sion. The thrice-repeated xvptos indicates the ‘‘ divine majesty 
and power of Christ.” Bengel. These words were the dying 
utterance of Edward Irving. 


Ver. 9. The Receptus, with DL Peshito, Eng. Ver., reads 
amrédavey Kat avéotn kat avélnoev; the reading in the text is 
supported by SABC Copt., Aith., Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. 
This verse gives the reason why believers belong to Christ, 
viz.: because Christ by his sacrificial life and death for them 
acquired a title to them. dzéJavev] as an idacrypwor, 1. e. 
Compare iil. 25. é{ycev] as antithetic to dzéJaver, is here 
equivalent to avé{ycev (which accounts for the Receptus read- 
ing); as in Rev. iv. 8; 2 Cor. iv. 10; Rom. v.10. By his 
death and resurrection, Christ obtained his lordship. ia] 
denotes the divine purpose. rexpév kai Covtwy| deceased and 
living believers. Christ’s dominion over his people is not 
interrupted by their death. Compare Mat. xxii. 32. If 
Christ is Lord of his people, not only when living but also 
when dead, it follows that they are. under obligation to serve 
him both in death and in life. 


Ver. 10, od de] this is addressed to the “ weak,” who 
passes a censure upon the freedom of the “strong” in faith. 


Lic 


394 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


/ a 
adeAdov cov; i) Kal od ti eLoutevets Tov adeApov cov ; 
TUVTES Yap TapacTnoopeda TO Bywate Tod Jeod. ™“ yé- 
ypatrar yap Za eyo, éyer KUpLOS, OTL Ewol Kdprpes Trav 
) L wa Aoaoa éEouoNoyy dD deo. a U 
yovu, Kal Taca yAOoo podoyijceTat TO Jed. “ dpa odv 


kat ov| this is addressed to the “strong,” 


who was prone to 
despise the “weak” in faith. advtes yap, etc.] assigns the 
reason why the one should not censure, or the other despise, 
viz.: that both are to stand before the divine tribunal, where 
neither will be the other’s superior. Compare verse 4. Jeod] 
is the reading of NABCDEFG Copt., Lachm., Tisch, Tre- 
gelles; the Receptus, L, Peshito, Vulg., read Xpiotod. De 
Wette, Tholuck, Philippi, and Hodge contend for the latter. 
The ms. authority decidedly favors the former, and the early 
versions the latter. Polycarp also (Philipp. 6) says wavres de 
TapacTpvar TO Pyare Tov Xpsorov. The phrase Byua rod Xpurrov 
is found in 2 Cor. v. 10; and Jpovos tod viod Tod avdpwrov in 
Mat. xxv. 31. The pronunciation of the final judgment is 
the official act of the Son, and not of the Father, Mat. vii. 22, 
23; John v. 22; Acts xvii. 31. 


Ver. 11 proves by quotation from the Old Testament, that 
every one must stand before the judgment-seat of God. 
yeyparrat| in Isa. xly. 23. The citation is considerably varied 
from the Septuagint. @ éydé] the Sept. has car’ éuavrod dprvw. 
Compare Num. xiv. 21, 28; Deut. xxxii. 40. ‘“ By my life, 
T asseverate that to me every knee shall bow.” éefopoAoyjoerar 
To Jeo] the Sept. reads 6petrac tava yAdooa tov Séov, which 
agrees with the Hebrew. éfouoAoynoerat does not mean, here, 
the confession of sin (Chrysost., Theophylact), which would 
require the accusative of the object (Matt. iii. 6; Acts xix. 
18; James v. 16), but the praise of God, as the final judge, 
Rom. xv. 9; Mat. xi. 25; Luke x. 21 (Meyer, Philippi). Com- 
pare Phil. ii. 11, 


CHAPTER XIV. 12, 13. 395 


ld e lal \ > fal , , a A 18 / 
ExacToOS nuav Tept éavtod Aoyov dacEL TH JES. PNKETL 
odv aNAHAOUS KPiV@MEV, GANA TODTO KpivaTE PANNOD, TO p1) 


Ver. 12 is an inference (introduced by dpa otv: “ accord- 
ingly then”), for the sake of emphatic repetition, from verses 
4,10, 11. The emphatic word is J«@. Every one owes an 
account to God, not man, and therefore will not be judged 
by man. deca] is the reading of NACEL Tisch. The Re- 
ceptus, with BDFG Lachm., Tregelles, reads drodace. Com- 
pare Luke xvi. 2; Heb. xiii. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 5. The same 
authorities which support arodwoe omit ovr. 


Ver. 13. St. Paul, in the first clause of this verse, founds 
an exhortation to both parties (4\AyjAovus), upon the preceding 
statements respecting God as the only judge, and then in 
the last clause passes to a duty of the “strong” toward the 
“weak;” viz.: not to hinder or injure him in the Christian 
life, by the exercise of personal liberty in regard to the dis- 
puted points. The apostle continues to discuss the subject 
of the right use of Christian liberty, down to verse 23. — kpt- 
vwuev| has the same meaning as in verses 4, 10. Though the 
“weak” in faith has hitherto been represented as the censori- 
ous person, yet crimination naturally leads to recrimination, 
and both the weak and strong are warned. todro pivate paAXov | 
“determine this, rather.” xpwetv is here employed, by anta- 
naclasis, in a different sense from its use in the previous 
clause. In the first instance, it signifies, to pass a judicial 
sentence ; in the second, it signifies, to form a moral judg- 
ment, or to prescribe a rule of action for one’s self : to “ de- 
termine,” or “resolve,” as in 1 Cor. ii. 2; vii. 37; 2 Cor. 11. 1. 
7d py, etc.] this sentence is made equivalent to a substantive 
by the neuter article, and explains toro. Compare 2 Cor. i. 1. 
mpookoppa] is an obstacle against which the foot of the travel- 
ler strikes. oxavdadov] is a part of a trap. See comment on 


896 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


a A 5 
TIMéval TPOTKOMpMAa TO ALEAPO 7) oKdvdarov. ™ oida Kal 
mérevopar ev Kupio Inood dtu ovdev Kowov St’ éavTod, ei 


xi. 9. The strong in the faith must not, by recklessly fol- 
lowing his own convictions as to what is allowable in dis- 
puted matters, put anything in the path of a fellow disciple 
that will ensnare him, or cause him to stumble and fall. 


Ver. 14 teaches that the strong believer is really in the 
right, so far as the abstract question in dispute is concerned, 
but that this does not authorize him to disregard the con- 
scientious scruples of the weak believer. wémewpan ev kupin} 
strenethens oida. St. Paul’s knowledge is an absolutely sure 
conviction, founded upon his communion with Christ. In 
this way, he is “fully persuaded in his own mind” (verse 5). 
xowov| corresponds to the classical BéBAov, “ profane.” It 
denotes what is unclean according to the ceremoniai law, 
Lev. xi. éavrod| is the reading of the Receptus, which is 
supported by SBC Vulg., Tisch. The reading avrov is sup- 
ported by ADEFGL: which is accented dvurot (him), by The- 
odoret (who refers it to Christ), Bengel, Lachm., Tregeiles, 
Meyer; and atrod (itself), by Griesbach, Knapp, Matthiz, De 
» ‘Ste, Philippi. The first and last are supported by Chry- 
sostom’s explanation, 77 @vce. There is nothing unclean 
per se. It is made so only by a positive statute. Compare 
Mat. xv. 11; Acts x. 14, 15, 28. «i uy] is equivalent to dAAa, 
and refers to the whole clause, ovdev Kowdv dv éavtod (De 
Wette, who cites Mat. xii. 4; Gal. ii. 16). Meyer, Philippi, 
Fritzsche, and Winer, on the contrary, give it the literal 
meaning of ‘“‘except,” connecting it with ovdé& Kowdv alone. 
These grammarians explain «i py by “nisi,” in Mat. xii. 4; 
Gal. i. 7, 19; ii. 16. AoyConevw] signifies, as usual in the 
Kpistle, to “reckon,” or “account.” éxeivw] is strongly em- 


phatic ; compare Mark vii. 15, 20; 2 Cor. x. 18, ‘The dis- 


CHAPTER XIV. 15. 397 


\ Lal , \ > > / Lg 16 > \ 
fy TO RoyLComév@ TL Kowvov Eivat, exeiv@ KoLVOV. “* EL Yap 
dua Bp@ua o adeAPos cov AvTEiTAL, OVKETL KATA ayaTnY 

pap aderpos , ou a ayaTn 
Tepimatels. 1) TO Bp@pmati cov Exelvov aroAve, U7rép ov 


tinction between clean and unclean meats is no longer valid. 
So far, the Gentile converts are right. But they should 
remember that those who consider the law of the Old Testa- 
ment on this subject as still binding, cannot with a good 
conscience disregard it. The simple principle here taught is, 
that it is wrong for any man to violate his own sense of 


duty.” Hodge in loco. 


Ver. 15. «i yap] is the reading of SABCDEFG Vulg., 
Copt., Griesbach, Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. The Receptus, 
with L Peshito, reads «i dé. Tholuck, Meyer, Lange, Alford, 
Wordsworth, Jowett adopt the first; De Wette, Philippi, 
Hodge prefer the second. The first must be chosen, upon 
diplomatic considerations, though the more difficult of ex- 
planation. Verse 15 may be connected with verse 13: ‘do 
not put a stumbling block, etc., for, if, on account of meat,” 
ete. This makes verse 14 parenthetical, which is objection- 
able. Or, verse 15 may be connected with the last clause of 
verse 14, by supplying the ellipsis: “there is good reason 
mentioning this exception, for, etc.” (Meyer). The other 
reading is easily explained: “there is nothing unclean of it 
self, but if, on account of meat, etc.” Bpdyua] the “ unclean ” 
meat eaten by the strong believer. Avzetra| 1. is “ filled 
with remorse,” being emboldened to eat against his scruples 
(De Wette, Meyer). 2. is spiritually ‘injured ” (Philippi). 
The latter is favored by the following dmdAAve, and by the 
classical (not New Testament) use of the word. fpapari| 
the eating of “unclean” meat, as before. dmdAAve] denotes 
the tendency of such a course of action, on the part of the 
strong in faith. Such an example is not helpful and saving, 


398 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS, 


Xpictos avédavev. ** uty Bracdhnucioc3w odv vuav TO aya- 
34. / 17 2 \ ? e / a a a \ f 
ov. ov yap éotTiv 7 Bacirela Tod Jeovd Bpaors Kai 70- 


but injurious and destructive. To encourage a fellow disci- 
ple to violate his conscience, and thereby to fill him with — 
remorse, will end in his ruin, if persisted in. But it does not 
follow that it will be persisted in. On the contrary, see 
verse 4. See also the comment on xi. 21, 22. Bengel and 
Philippi find in this verse ‘‘a dictum probans for the possi- 
bility of apostasy.” daméJavev| “do not think more of your 
food, than Christ thought of his life.” Bengel. 


Ver. 16. Brachnpeiodw| “to be evil spoken of.” Com- 
pare li. 24; 1 Tim. vi. 1; Titus ii. 5; 2 Pet. ii. 2. 10 dyadov| 
1. Your Christian liberty, 1 Cor. x. 29, 30 (Grotius, Calvin, 
Tholuck, Hodge). This makes tov refer to the “strong” 
alone. 2. The Christian faith, or the gospel (Chrysost., 
Luther, Bengel, Philippi). 3. The Christian church, or the 
- kingdom of God, ver. 17 (Meyer). The second or third is 
preferable to the first, because the “evil speaking” is evi- 
dently from outside of the church, and the ‘‘ good thing” is 
something belonging to the church as a whole, and not to a 
portion of it. This is also favored, by the reading or, in- 
stead of iuaév, which is found in DEFG Peshito. St. Paul 
exhorts both the “‘ weak” and the “strong” not to give 
occasion, by their disputes and contentions with one an- 
other, to the heathen world, to speak evil of the Christian 
religion and church. Compare 1 Cor. x. 32. 


Ver. 17 assigns a motive, introduced by yap, for avoiding 
the reproaches of the world. 7 BactAela tod Jeod| This phrase 
is equivalent to 7 Bacwr<ia, simply; or 7 Paorrela tod Xpucrod, 
or Tav ovpavav, or Tov otpavod. As this kingdom has both an 
objective and a subjective side, is both visible and invisible, 
the phrase sometimes denotes: 1. the Christian life in the 


CHAPTER XIV. 1%, 18. 399 


ol Ane Py at , \ ae 4 \ \ 3 , 

Sy a OtKaLoaUYN Kai EipnVYn Kal yapa év TVEvpaTL 
e fal . lal 

ayio* “0 yap év ToUT@ SovrAevav TO Xpiotw evapectos TO 


soul, as in this passage, and 1 Cor. iv. 20; Mat. vi. 33; Luke 
xvill. 21. 2. the Christian church in which it is embodied: 
either in its present earthly form, Mat. xiii. 24-30; xvi. 19; 
or its future heavenly, Mat. vii. 21; 1 Cor. vi. 9; xv. 50; Gal. 
v. 21; Eph. v. 5; or, both together, Mat. iii. 2; vi. 10; Coloss. 
1.13; iv. 11. Bpédors cai roots] the kingdom of God does not 
consist in eating or not eating, drinking or not drinking 
particular things. Christianity is not ceremonialism. Hence, 
they should not, by their disputes about ceremonial obsery- 
ances, provoke the reproaches of unbelievers. d.catoovvn, 
eipyvy, and xapa] are employed, not in the ethical sense of 
uprightness, peace with men, and enjoyment of life as the 
consequence (Chrysost., Grotius, Fritzsche, Meyer), but in 
the dogmatic sense of justification, reconciliation with God, 
and spiritual joy (Calvin, Pareus, Calovius, Riickert, De 
Wette, Tholuck, Philippi, Hodge). This is the use of these 
terms throughout the Epistle, and the adjunct, “in the Holy 
Ghost,” agrees with it. ‘ Since the object is, to state in what 
the essence of God’s kingdom consists, no derivative and 
accidental characteristics can be meant, but only those which 
are primary and essential.” Philippi. At the same time, it 
must be remembered that the ethical virtues grow naturally 
and necessarily out of the evangelical d:cavoovvy, and are in- 
separable from it. See the preceding statements, in chapters 
Vi.—Vil., respecting the connection between sanctification and 
justification, or of morality with faith. De Wette, conse- 
quently, combines both explanations. év mvevpare dyiw] is 
connected with xapa only. Compare Acts xii. 62; Gal. v. 


a2; 1 Thess. i. 6. 


Ver. 18 is a confirmation, introduced by yép, of the state- 


400 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Sed xat Sdéxiuos tots avIpemou. * dpa obv Ta THs 
yp parrow. ™ dp 


> / , \ \ a > } a nn > > / 
elpnvns Sl@Kwmev Kal TA THS OlKOCOMAS THS Els GAAH- 


ment in verse 17 respecting the nature of the kingdom of 
God. rovrw| is the reading of SNABCDFG, Vulg., Sahidic, 
Coptic, Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. The Receptus, EL, Pesh- 
ito, read rovtos. Some (De Wette, Hodge) refer tovtw to 
mvevpate ayiw, by whose assistance the believer serves Christ. 
Meyer takes it collectively, as referring to the fact stated in 
verse 17, “‘in accordance with which” the believer serves 
Christ. It is simpler to supply some word like tpozwm.- “he 
who serves Christ in this manner.” The reference of tovros 
would, of course, be to dixaoovvy, <ipyvn, and xapa. evapeoros| 
denotes complacency. God,takes pleasure in one who serves 
Christ in the evangelical manner described. The legalist is 


ce 


not well-pleasing to God, because “‘ whatsoever is not of 


faith is sin” (verse 23). ddxipos] is “approved of” by men, 
and thus gives them no occasion to ‘speak eyil of” the 


Christian religion, and the kingdom of God. 


Ver. 19 is an exhortation, in the form of an inference from 
verses 17, 18, to attain the end proposed in verse 16. dpa 
ovv] “accordingly then.” duper] is the reading of CDE 
Receptus ; and duwxouev that of RABFGL, Lachm., Tisch. 
The latter is the most strongly supported, but we retain the 
former, because dpa ovty does not agree with the indicative 
(‘accordingly then, we are pursuing.” Lachmann makes it 
an interrogation: ‘accordingly then, are we pursuing ?”), 
and the vowels » and o are liable to be exchanged by a 
scribe. The term denotes a strenuous pursuit, as in ix. 30, 
31. oixodopqs] the figure denotes establishment and advance 
in the Christian life. Christian character is a structure built 
upon Christ, who is the foundation (1 Cor. iii. 2), and the 
chief corner-stone (Eph, ii, 20), eis dAAjAous| the edification 


CHAPTER XIV. 20, 21. 401 


Aouvs. “pn vexev Bpopyatos KaTddve TO Epyov Tod 
la) / \ ue > \ \ a > , 
Jeod. mdavTa pev Katapd, aGdAd\A KaKoV TO avIpaTH 
TO Sta TpocKompatos écdiovts> ™ Kadov TO pr dayeiv 

& : 


is mutual. The “strong” by his fraternal forbearance final- 
ly leads the “weak” to a better view of Christian liberty, 
and the “weak” by his conscientiousness preserves the 
“strong” from laxity of conscience. 


Ver. 20 is an exhortation to the “strong,” similar to that 
in verse 15. «xataAve| to loosen and pull down: the figure of 
the edifice is still retained. €pyov tod Jeot] the edification is 
God’s work. ‘Ye are God’s building,” 1 Cor. iii. 9. The 
reference is not to faith, or any particular grace, but to the 
believer himself: “‘fratrem, quem deus fecit fidelem.” Estius. 
mavta KaJapa| is a repetition of the affirmation that “there is 
nothing unclean of itself,” in verse 14. peév] followed by 
d\Aa, denotes a concession with a guarding clause: “It is 
indeed true that all things are clean, but, etc.” Kaxdv] i. e., 
TO KaJapov éotiv xaxov (Meyer). Other ellipses are, zéav 
(Reiche); 76 Bpdpa (Grotius); 76 eodiew (Riickert); ro mavra 
gaye (Fritzsche, Philippi). 6a mpooxduparos| the genitive 
of occasion: he who eats contrary to his conscientious con- 
victions, by means of (dua) the example set by the “strong.” 
This example has previously been denominated a zpdcxoupa 
in verse 13. The sentiment is the same as in the last clause 
of verse 14. Some commentators (Grotius, Bengel, De 
Wette, Fritzsche, Hodge) refer 76 éoIiovre to the “ strong.” 
In this case, da rpooxopparos must be taken as an adjective, 
and rendered “ offensively,” or so as to give offence; which 
is not so literal, and is contrary to the context. : 


Ver. 21 contains the rule of action for the “strong.” 
kadov} sc. cot éo71, 1 Cor. ix. 15. py payetiv, etc.| it is noble 
and admirable, to practise entire abstinence, rather than an 


402 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS: 


a c £ 

Kpéa pndé mvetv oivoy pndé ev @ 0 adEXPOS TOU TPOTKO- 
EN / x > al 22 \ é ad ” 

Tree 7) oKavoanifeTar 7) acdevel. av TioTw iv exes 

na a / c \ fe 

KaTa ceavTov eye Ev@muoy TOV Jeov. paKaplos O M1) Kpt- 


allowable indulgence that works spiritual evil to a fellow 
Christian. unde év @] i. e. pende Toety ev O. 7) oKavdadilerar 7 
acJevel| are omitted by SAC Peshito, Coptic, Aith., Tisch. ; 
and supported by BDEFGL Vulg., Sahidic, Receptus, 
Lachm., Tregelles. doJevet| is weakened and made hesitat- 
ing, in regard to following his conscientious conviction, 


Ver. 22. jv exes] is the reading of SABC Coptic, Lachm., 
Tisch., Tregelles. ‘The faith which thou hast, have it to 
thyself.” The Receptus. DEFGL Vulg., Peshito, Sahidic, 
Auth., omit 7v. This latter may be construed as concessive: 
“Thou hast faith, have it to thyself” (Luther, Beza, Fritzsche, 
Tholuck); or interrogatively: ‘Hast thou faith? have it to 
thyself” (Calvin, Grotius, Eng. Ver., De Wette, Philippi, 
Hodge). aiorw]| the strong faith of St. Paul, which ‘knows 
and is persuaded in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing un- 
clean of itself.” ye] this faith is not to be given up, but 


firmly held, because it is founded in the true view of the 


(73 ” 


case in dispute. «xara ceavrov | lemurs may act in 


accordance with his own convictions in his own private life, 
” 


strong 


whenever his example will not be a snare to the ‘weak. 
2. The “strong” is not ostentatiously to parade his views 
before those whose scruples are different from his own. 
évwriov Tov Jeod| the “strong” when following his own con- 
victions in private, must remember that though a weak 
brother is not present as a spectator, yet God is present. 
This is a salutary check which will prevent Christian liberty 
from becoming licentiousness. jpaxapios, etc.] applies to both 
the “strong” and the “weak” alike. He is to be felicitated 
who has no reason to reproach himself for what he does, 


CHAPTER XIV. 23. 403 


: 
vev éavtov, ev ® Soxydater: 0 5é dvaxpuvdmevos €av 
hayn Kataxéxpitat, OTL ovK ex TlaTEws* TaV OE O OK Ex 


TloTEWS GuapTia éoTiv. 


whether he eat, or abstain. Happy is he who has a good 
conscience. «pivwy| denotes a condemnatory sentence, as in 
Metevu. tl: Luke xix. 22; John iii. 17; viii. 26; Rom. 11. 1, 3: 
Soxiuale.| what he approves of and permits itself to do: 
“agendum eligit,” Estius; “alloweth,” Eng. Ver. Compare 
ieee & Cor. xvi, 3. 


VER. 23. diaxpivopevos| denotes doubt respecting the right- 
fulness of an act. Compare iv. 20. The reference is rather 
to the “weak” believer; but not exclusively so. ay] if, in 
spite of his doubt, i. e. xataxéxpurar|] the act itself con- 
demns him, before God and his own mind. The rendering 
“damned,” of the English Version, is misleading. It is only 
when persisted in, that such action results in everlasting 
damnation. 7] assigns the reason for the condemnation, 
ex miotews| sc. épaye. Two meanings belong to zioms. 1. 
Justifying faith, such as has been the theme of the Epistle, 
i. 17; iii. 25, 26 et passim (Augustine, Calovius). 2. Moral 
faith, or the conviction of the rectitude of an act (Chrysost., 
Grotius, De Wette). The connection certainly requires 
the latter meaning, because the writer is speaking of the 
necessity of a “full assurance” of the correctness of the 
course pursued. Vacillation and doubt are forbidden. But 
since this clear conviction is impossible without faith in 
Christ, the second meaning must be combined with the first. 
‘‘Faith, here, is the firm assurance proceeding from justify- 
ing faith in Christ.” Philippi. ‘Faith, here, is faith in Christ, 
so far as it brings moral confidence in regard to the right 
course of action in a given case.” Meyer. “The word faith, 
is to be taken, here, for a fixed persuasion of the mind, or 


404 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


a firm assurance, yet not that of any kind, but that which is 
derived from the truth of God.” Calvin. ‘“ Innuitur ergo 
ipsa fides, qua fideles censentur, conscientiam informans et 
confirmans ; partim fundamentum, partim norma rectz acti- 
onis.” Bengel. 6é] is transitive: “now.” Yet, the senti- 
ment introduced by it is intended to be corroborative of the 
preceding statement ; and hence, as De Wette suggests, yap 
would have been proper. icrews] has the same meaning as 
in the preceding sentence. Augustine founded his proposi- 
tion: “omnis infidelium vita peccatum est,” upon this clause. 
‘If every action is sin, which does not proceed from the as- 
surance that it is well-pleasing to God, and such assurance 
itself can only be the result of evangelical faith, it follows 
that every action is sin that has not such faith as its ultimate 
source.” Philippi. The explanation: ‘‘ Whatever we do which 
we are not sure is right, is wrong” (Hodge), does not exhaust 
the meaning of this important dictum of St. Paul. 


CHAPTER XV. 


"Odeiromev Se Hucts of Svvatoi Ta dodevnpata TOV 
aduvatoyv Baotalew Kal pa) éavtois apécxew. * Exactos 
HUOV TO TANGY apecKeT@ Els TO ayaIOV TpOs oiKOSomnp * 
3 \ \ € \ by e a yy > x Sa r 

Kal yap 0 Xpictds ovy EavT@ Hpecev, ada Katos YE- 


Tus chapter, down to verse 13, continues the subject of 
the preceding chapter. Hence Lachmann arranges xy. 1-13 
as a part of chapter xiv. Even if this arrangement is 
adopted, a new paragraph begins here. 


Ver. 1. 3] is transitive: “now.” At the same time, 
the sentiment is inferential in respect to the preceding, as 


the English Version, “we tien,” etc., implies. jets] the 


“6 9 


Apostle reckons himself with the “strong,” whose views he 


> meant, are 


shared, xiv. 14, 20. doJevypara] the “ infirmities’ 
the scruples respecting clean and unclean meats, sacrificial 
flesh, and libation-wine. Paorafew] to bear, in the sense of 
forbear: to tolerate. Compare Gal. vi. 2, 5. éavrois apéoxery | 
self-gratification is the contrary of self-denial, which is the 


leading trait in the Christian religion, Mat. x.37-39; xvii. 24. 
oD o > b] 


Ver. 2. 70 dyaSov| what is spiritually useful and beneficial. 
Compare 76 ovudépov, 1 Cor. x. 33. The “pleasure” is not 
to be of any kind whatever, but only that which is profitable. 
mpos| “ with a view to,” as in iii. 26. oixodounv| see comment 


on xiv. 19. 


Ver. 3 assigns the reason for the preceding exhortation. 
cat] “even” Christ, ete. Xpiords odx, etc.] Compare 2 Cor. 


406 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


he Oi evewdiopa TOV overdiLovtay ce érémecav er 
euée. * dca yap Ter eeea els iid nueTépav SiacKadiav 
eypadn, wa dia Ths bropovis Kal bua THs Tapakdjoews 


vil. 9; Eph. v. 25; Phil. i1..5 sq.: 1 Pet. i. 20:)iieieacumes 
where Christ is presented as an example of living for others, 
and not for himself. édAa| requires no supplementary word, 
like éyévero, or éxoincev (Grotius). Christ is introduced di- 
rectly, as speaking the words of the Psalm (Meyer, Philippi). 
The quotation is literal from the Septuagint of Ps. lxix. 9. 
The psalm is Messianic, and verses 22, 23, have been quoted 
in x1. 9.10. See the comment. syeieoeene oe| Christ, by re- 
ceiving upon himself the revilings of God’s enemies, proved 
that he did not live for self-gratification. 


Ver. 4 evinces the propriety of the preceding quotation. 
mpoeypady| refers to the Messianic matter of the Old Testa-: 
ment, like zpoernyyeiAaro in i. 2. B reads éypady, here, and 
inserts wavra after it. perépav| us Christians. didacKxadiav| 
denotes a union of instruction and admonition. €¢ypady] is 
the reading of NBCDEFG Peshito, Vulg., Copt., Ath., 
Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. The Receptus AL read zpoeypagy. 
twa] denotes the end for which the Scriptures were given. 
bromovns and mapaxAjcews| are both to be connected with 
ypapov.: the power to endure temptation and _ afflictions 
(comment on y. 3), and spiritual comfort (comment on i. 12), 
are produced by the knowledge of the divine word. 6a] 
before ths mapakdyoews is the reading of SABCL Peshito, 
AXth., Griesbach, Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. It is omitted 
by DEFG Vulg., Copt., Receptus. tiv édrida] the article 
denotes the well-known Christian hope of future blessedness. 
Compare v. 2.  éxwpev| not, ‘to hold on upon” (Beza), but, 
“to have,” or “possess” (De Wette, Meyer, Philippi). ¢A- 
ida is subjective, as in Acts xxiv. 15; 2 Cor. x. 15; Eph. ii. 


CHAPTER XV. 5, 6 407 


Tov ypahav tiv édrrida éyopuev. °0 O€ Jeds Tis UTo- 
povas Kal Ths TapakAncews San buiv TO adTo dpoveiv €v 
Adgjrows Kata Xpiotov “Incodv, ° iva opodvuacov €v évi 
ordpatt So€dtnte Tov Jeov Kal watépa Tov Kupiov Lav 


12; 1 Thess. iv.13; 1 John iii. 3. The effect of the patience 
and comfort derived from the Scriptures is a cheering per- 


sonal hope of eternal life. 


Ver. 5, together with verse 6, continues the subject, but 
in the form of a prayer to God. e| is transitive: ‘‘ now.” 
Jos THs, etc.| God is the author and source of patience and 
consolation; the Scriptures are the instrument which he em- 
ploys. Compare Jes tis éAridos, xv. 13; and J<os tis eipyvys, 
xv. 33; Phil. iv. 9; 1 Thess. v. 23; Heb. xiii. 20. dey] is the 
Hellenistic form, instead of the Attic doi7, Compare 2 Tim. i. 
16,18. The strong and steady unanimity spoken of is a gift 
of God. 76 aird dpoveiv] Compare xii. 16; Phil. ii. 2. “ Unanim- 
ity in doctrine is not meant, here, but in feeling and action. 
Common patience and common consolation, in common tribu- 
lations, are the source and cement of unity, especially when 
the tribulation consists in reviling and persecution on the 
part of God’s enemies (verse 3), which is a summons to 
God’s friends, to stand together all the more firmly.” Phil- 
ippi. xata Xpicrov] according to the will (not the example) 
of Christ, like xara Jéov, viii. 27. The oneness of his people 
was a strong desire of Christ, John xvii. 21-23. 


Ver. 6. iva] denotes the end intended by this unanimity, 
viz.: God’s praise and glory. 6u0dvpaddv] unanimously, and 
in a body, Acts. i. 14. év évi oropatt| is the outward expres- 
sion of duoIvuadov. Oneness of feeling and purpose results 
in oneness of speech. ov Jedv Kal watépa Tod Kupiov, ete. | 
Compare 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; Eph. i. 3; Coloss.i, 3; 1 Pet. i. 
3. “In all these passages, rod xupiov belongs only to zarip, 


408 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


and not to Jeds, as is shown by the passages in which God is. 
described as 6 Jeds kai marynp, without the addition of the 
genitive Tod Kuptov Nav “Incod Xpurrod, 1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. v. 
205 Coloss. ili. 17; James i. 27; ui. 9. The praise is first of 
all defined as a dofalew tov Jedv, the standing designation 
(Mat. ix. 8; Mark ii. 12; Luke ii. 20; v.25, 26; vii. 16; xiii. 
13; Acts iv: 213, xi. 18 ;,xxi. 20; Rom. 1 213 -xvg5 ear 
vi. 20; 2 Cor. ix. 13; Gal. 1. 24; 1 Pet, 1. 12 suye 
and this God is then more precisely defined as Father of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. He is praised first of all as God in the 
abstract, and then as Father of Jesus Christ, in which char- 
acter he has bestowed on men all benefits that call for praise. 
So Theodoret: 7uav Jeov exaheve Tov Jeov, ToD d€ Kupiov mwarépa. 
On the other hand, the application of 70d xuplov “Incod Xpiorov 
to Jeov and ratépa together appears utterly without reason, 
because it is not easy to see why God should be praised 
directly and simply as the God of Jesus Christ, John xx. 17; 
Eph. 1.17; Heb. i. 9. But when the Father of the Lord 
Jesus Christ is praised, indirectly the Son, this Lord Jesus 
Christ himself, is praised as well, and that with one mind, 
since he is the one Lord of all, x. 12; xiv. 6-9.” Philippi in 
loco. Meyer agrees with this interpretation, and observes: 
“Tt ought not to have been objected to this interpretation, 
that the form of expression in this case must either have 
been tov Jeov juadv kal tarépa “Iycod Xpicroi, or else Tov Jedv Tov 
matépa ‘Incot Xpiorod, Either of these would be the expression 
of another idea. But as St. Paul has here expressed himself, 
tov binds the conceptions of God and Father of Christ in 
unity.” This interpretation is adopted, also, by the English 
Version, De Wette, Stuart. The other interpretation is sup- 
ported by Grotius, Bengel, Riickert, Fritzsche. Tholuck, 
Hodge, and Alford, are undecided. 


Ver. 7. 8] “on which account,” viz.: in order that this 


CHAPTER XV. & 409 


*Incod Xpictov. * dvd tpocdkapBavecte addjdovs, KaIas 
Kai o Xpiotos TpoceraBeto vas eis Sokav tod Jeod. 
“Aéyw yap Xpiotov oudKxovoy yevéoIat wepitowhs vrep 
aAndeias Jeod, eis TO BeBaiwoar Tas éemayyedias THY TaTé- 


unanimous praise may be rendered. zpocAapPBaverJe] re- 
ceive to your affectionate fellowship, as in xiv. 1. dAAndovs] 


> and the 


the exhortation is addressed both to the “ strong’ 
“weak.” kadws 6 Xpurros| if Christ could welcome you to his 
communion, you, surely, can welcome each other to your own 
communion. was] is the reading of SNACEFGL Peshito, 
Vulg., Copt., Auth., Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. The Receptus, 
with BD, reads 7uds. eis d0fay tod Jeod| is best connected 
with Xpiords zpooeAaBero, as the nearer antecedent, and on 
account of the contents of verses 8,9. Christ received you 
Jews and Gentiles, in order that the veracity and mercy of 
God might be honored, and in this way God be glorified. 


Ver. 8 explains how Christ “received” them. Aé€yw] “I 
wish to say,” i. e., “1 mean:” a common way, in St. Paul’s 
writings, of beginning an explanation. Compare 1 Cor. i. 
12; Gal. v.16. yap] is the reading of RABCDEFG Vulg., 
Copt., Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. It has the signifi- 
cation “namely,” as in Mat. i. 18 (Receptus). The Recep- 
tus, with L Peshito, reads 6& Xpicrdv] is the reading of 
SABC Copt., Auth., Lachm., Tisch. The Receptus Peshito, 
DEFG read “Incoty Xpiorov. yevéoJa] is the reading of 
BCDFG Lachm., Tregelles. Tischendorf, with SAEL, reads 
yeyevyoto, didkovov wepitouys| Christ became a servant of the 
circumcised Jews, in condescending to become their Messiah 
and Saviour. Compare Mat. xx. 28. epirou7 denotes the 
circumcised, as opposed to 7a éJvy, in verse 9, Compare ill, 
26; iv. 12; Gal. ii. 7; Eph. ii. 11. trép ddyJeias| in behalf 
of God’s veracity. is 76 BeBardoa, etc.| in fulfilling, by his 

18 


410 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS, 


< t 
pov, ° ta dé EIvn virép Edéous dokdcat Tov Yeov, KaIas 
lal , , 
yéypartat Aid tovTo eEouoroyncopal cou ev édverw Kal 
a nae os nr 10 \ / Lae iP an) / 
T® oVvo“aTL cov Ware, Kat Tadw éyet Evdpavinre 
éJvn peTa TOU aod avTod. “ Kal madw Aéyet Aivelre 
TavTa Ta EIVN TOV KUPLOV, Kal ETTALVETaTwWOAaY aUTOV Tay- 


incarnation, God’s promise to the patriarchs respecting the 
“Seed of the Woman,” Christ established the divine truth- 
fulness. Compare Luke i. 55; Acts ii. 25; Rom.ix. 4; Gal. ~ 
lies Oe 

Ver. 9. 7a dé Ivy d0€aca] 1. depends upon A€yw: “I mean, 
that the Gentiles ave praised,” by their conversion, i. e. 
(De Wette, Riickert); or should praise (Calvin, Grotius, 
Tholuck, Philippi); or praise (Vulgate, Luther, Fritzsche, 
Hodge). 2. is co-ordinate with BeBaooa and depends upon 
<is 70: “in order that the Gentiles might praise,” etc. (Eng. 
Ver., Meyer). The last is preferable. t7ép| = wepi- “in 
respect to,” or “for.” yéypamra] in Ps. xvii, 49, according 
to the Sept. 6&2 rotro| belongs to the quotation, and does 
not refer back to the preceding statement. €€onoAoyycopat| 
signifies “to praise,” as in xiv. 11. The original speaker is 
David, who is the type of Christ, who promises to glorify 
God among the Gentiles. 


Ver. 10. waAw] in another passage, viz.: Deut. xxxii. 43, 
according to the Sept. The Hebrew reads: ‘ Rejoice O ye 
nations, his people.” Ae¢ye| sc. 7) ypady, suggested by yéypa7- 
Tat, verse 9. 


Ver. 11. wadw Aye] is the reading of Lachmann, with 
BDEFG Peshito. Tischendorf, with NACL Vulgate, omits 
Aeye. eraweodtwoav| is supported by NABCDE Lachm., 
Tisch., Tregelles. The Receptus FGL read érawécere. .The 
term is stronger in meaning than aiveive; ‘laud him” (Eng. 


CHAPTER XV. 12-14. All 


Tes of Naot. © Kal wddw Hoaias rNéyer “Eotas pita Tod 
Teacai, Kai 0 aviotduevos apyew eIvav, én arta &Ivn 
érmuovow. 0 dé Jeds THs édmrldos TANPOCaL Duds Tans 
Yapas Kai Eipyvns Ev TO TLOTEVELY, ELS TO TEPLTTEVELW KMas 
év TH edrridu Ev SuvapEL TVEVpMATOS aryiov. 

“ ITerevopar dé, aderpou pov, kai avdtos eyo Tept buar, 


Ver.). The citation is from Ps. exvii. 1, according to the 
Septuagint, which agrees with the Hebrew.. 


Ver. 12. "Hoaias déyec] in xi. 10. St. Paul follows the 
Sept. The Hebrew reads: ‘ And in that day shall be a root 
of Jesse, which stands for a banner to the nations; unto it 
shall the Gentiles turn.” pia rod “levoai| Rev. v. 5; xxii. 16; 
Isa. xi. 1. Christ is a shoot from the stock of David; the 
roval stock itself having been cut down. é7'] denotes re- 
cumbency and rest upon. éAmodcw] “ Hope in Christ, is a 
proof of Christ’s divinity.” Calvin. “ Previously, the Gen- 


tiles were without hope, Eph. ii. 12.” Bengel. 


Ver. 13 concludes the section with an invocation, similar 
to that in verse 5. de] is transitive: “now.” éAmidos] God 
is the God of hope, as he is of patience and consolation (verse 
5). mdaoys| is anarthrous, to denote all possible kinds of joy 
and peace. The reading in the text is supported by SNACDEL 
Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. BFG read zAnpodopycar ipas év 
Taon Xapa Kal cipyvy, ev TO mMuoTEVELW Duds ev TH eAridL, etc. 
morteve| faith is the source of joy and peace. év dvvaper] 
denotes the element in which, and the energy by which: “in 
and by.” See oni. 24. 


Ver. 14 begins a statement of the reason why St. Paul 
writes to the Roman church, viz.: because it is composed 
chiefly of Gentiles, and he has been appointed to preach 
chiefly to the Gentiles. méreucyar| denotes strong convic- 


412 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


iv4 \ b) \ / pI + id , 

OTL Kal avTol peato’ éote ayadwovvns, TEeTANP@MEVOL 
Taons yvooews, OuvdpEevot KAL ANANNOUS VvoUIeTEiv* *° TOA- 
-npotepov Se Eyparba vpiv aro pmépous, ws eTavapipvnoKoD 


tion, as in vill. 38; xiv. 14. Notwithstanding the earnest 
exhortation to duty, which might look as if he doubted their 
Christian character, he nevertheless has confidence in them. 
dé] is not transitive (Meyer), but adversative. ‘“ But, al- 
though I have thus admonished you, I am convinced,” ete. 
Kat avtos éyw| “I myself also:” the same person who has 
exhorted them. «ai adtoi] ‘* You yourselves, also:” spon- 
taneously, without being exhorted. édyadwovvys| kindness, 
or good-will, so as to be conciliatory toward each other. 
yvooews| knowledge of Christian truth, particularly respect- 
ing the universality of the gospel. SB Tisch. read tis yvo- 
cews, vovdereiv| fraternal admonition is meant, Acts xx. 31; 


dor iv. WA: 


Ver. 15. roApyporepov| this adjective is used adverbially: 
“more boldly” than was to be expected, considering my 
confidence in your good spirit, and insight of truth. AB 
read toAunporépws. dé] is adversative: “however.” tiv] is 
followed by ddeAgpot, in DEFGL Peshito, Vulg., Receptus. 
a6 gépous| 1. qualifies roAunporepov : “ somewhat too boldly ” 
(Peshito, Grotius, Hodge). 2. qualifies eypaya: “TI have 
written boldly, in places:” e. g., xii. 2; xiii. 11 sq.; xiv. (De 
Wette, Meyer, Lange, Philippi). The latter is preferable. 
“The boldness consists in having exhorted them as if they 
were his own church, although he was not the founder.” 
Lange. éravayipvyjocxwy| “reminding you again.” The apos- 
tle does not assume that he is teaching them what they were 
totally ignorant of, but is reiterating what they already 
know. This refers to those passages in the epistle that re- 
late to their duties toward God, society, and the church; 


CHAPTER XY. 16, 17. 413 


Das Sua THY Yapw THY Sodeiady jot ato TOD Jeod ** Els TO 
€ivat me NetTovpyov Xpicrovd ‘Incod eis ta EIvy, iepoup- 
youvta TO evayyédov Tov JEov, iva yévnTaL 1) Tpocpopa 
ToY édv@v EvTPOToEKTOS, 1yLaoMEVN EV TvEvpAaTL ayiQ. 
“ éy@ ovv THY Kavynow ev Xpiot@ ‘Inco’ ta Tpos Tov 


and not to those new revelations of truth which he makes in 
this epistle. 6 tiv Xap, ete.] gives the reason for the 
action mentioned in the sentence toAyypdrepov . . tas. 
xapw | is the grace of the apostolate, i. 5. 


Ver. 16. cis 7O civai . . édvy] specifies the purpose for 
which the apostolical grace was given him. eis édvn| “ with 
reference” to the Gentiles. tepovpyotvra] 1. ministering as a 
priest. The apostle discharged a priestly function in refer- 
ence to the gospel, in preaching it. The gospel was, meta- 
phorically, an oblation (Luther, Erasmus, Tholuck, Meyer). 
2. Consecrating the gospel (Aug., Calvin). 3. Being em- 
ployed in the gospel: operans evangelii (Beza, Pareus). The 
first is preferable, because evayyéAuov = evayyeAileoJar, as in 
i.1; xv. 19. Wa yévyta 7 zpoopopa, etc.| denotes the pur- 
pose of this discharge of a priestly function. “It is the 
priesthood of the Christian pastor, to sacrifice men, as it 
were, to God, by bringing them to obey the gospel; and 
not, as the Papists vaunt, by offering up Christ to reconcile 
men to God. Paul does not give, here, the name of priest 
to the pastors of the Church as a perpetual title, but employs 
the term metaphorically, in order to set forth the honor of 
the ministry.” Calvin. éJvév] genitive of apposition: the 
Gentiles themselves are the offering. év mvevyart| the offer- 
ing has no value, except through the sanctification of the 
Holy Spirit. 

Ver. 17. oty] draws an inference from verses 15, 16. ri 
kavxyow]| the glory which I have; my glorying, John v. 34, 


414 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Seov: “od yap TorAm Now TL NadEly BY ov KaTELpydoaTo 
19 


Xpictos S0 euod eis brraxojy éIvov, Oyo Kai Epyo, ™ ev 
36; Rom. iii. 27. The article is omitted by the Receptus 
SAL; is supported by BCDEFG Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. & 
Xpicr| the glorying is not in himself per se, but in himself 
as in Christ, villi. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 31. 74 mpos tov Jedv| sc, Kata: 
in respect to things that have a view, or reference, to the 
kingdom and cause of God, on earth. 


Ver. 18 proceeds to explain what the writer means, by 
saying that he has a reason for glorying. yap] introduces 
the explanation. od toApyow] “I will never be so presum- 
ing;” there is a reference to roAymporepoy, in verse 15. Aadeiv] 
not in the bad sense, ‘‘to prate about,” but, simply, ‘‘to say ” 
or “state.” ov kareipyaouro| ‘ has not accomplished.” These 
are the emphatic words in the sentence (Meyer, Philippi), 
and not Xpirds (Theodoret, Olsh., Fritzsche, Tholuck, 
Hodge). The negative is put for the positive: “I speak of 
what Christ has actually accomplished through me.” Glory- 
ing in his official labors has a good ground, for he has had 
real success. is traxonv| “in order to produce obedience.” 
Compare i. 5. Acyw Kat épyw| denotes the instrumentalities 
employed by the apostle, Acts vii. 22; 2 Cor. x. 11. 


Ver. 19. onpetwv kat tepatrwv] refer to épy», in verse 18. 
The genitive denotes an emanating source: an awakening 
impression proceeded from the miracles. For the miracles 
wrought by St. Paul, see Acts xiv. 3; xv. 12; xvi. 16 sq.; 
xix. 11 sq.; xx. 10 sq.; 2 Cor. xii. 12. “ onmeta kai répara are 
miraculous, divine operations in the world of physical nature, 
appointed by God as signs of higher relations, in order to 
excite the attention of men,” Philippi. The latter term is a 
more precise definition of the former, when the two are em- 
ployed together. év duvdjme tvevparos| is to be referred, not to 


CUAPTER XY. 19. 415 


Suvapet onuel@v Kal Tepatwr, ev Suvdper TVEvpaTOS aylou, 
ee >? Xo \ N / / ah an 
@aoTe we amo lepovoadnp Kai KvKrd@ péxpe TOV 'IhAvpiKod 


dvvapet onpeiwy, but to Katepyacato Xpiotos . . Adyw Kal Epyw. 
Compare 1 Cor. ii. 4. dyiov| is the reading of ACDEFG 
Vulg., Copt., Griesb., Lachm., Tregelles. The Receptus, 
SL, Peshito, A’th., Tisch., read Jeod. Breads rvevparos only. 
dote, etc.| mentions the result of the working of Christ in 
him. dz ‘Tepovoadn.] St. Paul labored three years in Damas- 
eus and Arabia (Acts ix. 20 sq.; Gal. i. 17 sq.), before he 
appeared in Jerusalem; but as these were disciplinary and 
preparatory, he reckons from Jerusalem as the starting-point 
of his apostolic work. It was here that he joined the apos- 
tolic college, Acts. ix. 28, 29; xxii. 18. Kal KixAw] se. THs 
TepovoadAnp. Compare Mark ii. 54; vi. 36; Luke ix. 12. 1. 
The circuit or vicinity: not the immediate neighborhood, 
which would be trivial to mention, but Arabia, Syria, and 
Cilicia (Gal. i. 21; Acts: ix. 30; xi. 25 sq.), constituting a 
circle of which Jerusalem was the centre (De Wette, Meyer, 
Philippi, Alford). 2. An arc of a circle described by start- 
ing from Jerusalem across Syria, Asia Minor, Troas, Macedo- 
nia, and Greece, as far as Illyria (Chrysost., Theodoret, Theo- 
phylact, Flacius). The latter, says Philippi, would be too 
ostentatious. péxpt Tod “IAdvpixod | St. Paul begins at Jerusa- 
lem, the south-east terminus a quo, and goes to Illyria, the 
north-west terminus ad quem. Illyria was the division line 
between the Eastern and Western Roman Empire. Meyer 
and Philippi regard Illyria as not merely the point which the 
apostle reached in his missionary labors, but as one of the 
countries, not enumerated in Acts, in which he preached the 
gospel. “This preaching probably happened during the 
journey mentioned in Acts xx, 1-3.” Philippi. zewAypwxévac| 
‘have fulfilled [the work of preaching] the gospel:” “have 
fully preached the gospel,” Eng. Ver. Compare Coloss. i. 25. 


416 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


TETNNPWKEVAL TO EvayyéLov TOD Xpictov. ™ ovTws Sé gt- 
if b] / b] a > , l4 

AoTLwovpevov evayyenilerIar ovy Orrov @voudodn Xpioros, 

iva pon em addOTpLov Jewérsov oikodoue, ~ addArAA KaI@s 


evayyéAuov is equivalent to evayyeAieoJou, as in i. 1. The 
apostle had completely discharged his apostolic function of 
introducing Christianity into these countries, and founding 
churches. He does not mean that there was no more work 
to be done in these regions by preachers of the gospel. 
‘He has completely spread the Gospel.” Lange. 


Ver. 20 states the principle adopted by St. Paul in his 
apostolic labor. otrws dé] ‘ But, in such a manner.” @tAort- 
povpevov] is the reading of SACEL Peshito, Receptus, Tisch. ; 
ptroTyovpat is that of BDFG Lachm., Tregelles. The word 
literally signifies, “to pursue zealously, so as to obtain 
honor thereby.” It was a point of honor, with St. Paul 
(Meyer). Such a motive, however,sis foreign to the apostle, 
and only the general notion of earnest endeavor is meant, as 
in 2 Cor. v.93; 1 Thess. iv. 11... If the: partieipial fommgas 
adopted, it depends upon gore pe . . wetAnpwxeva: “ but en- 
deavoring earnestly to preach the gospel, in such a manner,” 
etc. ovx dzov, etc.] explains otras, negatively. dvopacdy] 
not, ‘called upon,” or “ worshipped,” but “ known,” simply. 
The reference is to heathen, or utterly unevangelized regions. 
St. Paul does not mean to say that he would never labor to 
instruct and edify existing churches, by “imparting some 
spiritual gift” to them (i. 11). This very letter to the Ro- 
man church proves the contrary. But he never would select 
as a field for the founding of new churches one that had 
already been occupied by another apostle. aAAdrpiov] “ be- 
longing to another person,” 2 Cor. x. 15, 


Ver. 21. adda] introduces the positive explanation of otras. 
yéyparrat| in Isa, lii. 15: quoted literally from the Septuagint, 


CUAPTER XY. 22-24 417 


, 3 > > I i > A ” 
yeypartat Ois ovK avnyyédAn wept avtod dYovtal, Kal 
o) ovk aknkoaciw cuvycovow. ™” dio Kal évexomTounv 
Ta TOAAG TOU éXJelv Tpos Las, * vuvi dé wnKéTL TOTO 
” ’ o lA 7 > / \ ” na 
éywov év Tois KNipwace TovTOLs, énuTodiay Sé Eyxwv TOU Ed- 
Jeiv mpos vuas awd ToAN@Y éToV, * ws Av TopEetvMpas ELS 


which agrees substantially with the Hebrew. The subject, 
in the original connection, is the Gentile nations, or the 
Gentile nations and kings together. epi airod] is an addi- 
tion by the LXX., referring to “my servant,” in Isa. li. 13. 
dknxoagw]| sc. 70 evayyéAuov, suggested by ebayyeAiler Jar, in 
verse 20, and dvayyéAy, in verse 21. 


Vir. 22 begins to describe the plan of his present jour- 
ney. 6] “for this reason,” viz.: because he had been oc- 
cupied in preaching the gospel in unevangelized regions, 
Ta Toda] is the reading of NACL Vulg., Receptus, Tisch., 
Tregelles. Lachmann, with BDEFG, reads wodAdxs. The 
meaning is: ‘‘in most cases,” “for the most part.” This was 
not the sole reason (compare 1 Thess. ii. 18), but the principal 
one. 


VER. 23. rérov] “scope,” or opportunity for apostolic labor 
in founding new churches. Compare xii. 19.  K«Aipacr| “ re- 
gions,” or “districts;” namely, from Jerusalem to Illyria, 
verse 19. Compare 2 Cor. xi. 10; Gal. i. 21. zoAA@y is sup- 
ported by SADEFGL, Receptus, Tisch.; ixavav is the read- 
ing of BC Lachm. 


Ver. 24. os dv] (L Recept., ws eav): “ whensoever.” Sraviav| 
the Greek Iberia, and Latin Hispania. It was a Roman 
province, with many Jewish residents, and thus well adapted 
for evangelistic work. That St. Paul executed his purpose 
to go to Spain, is affirmed by those who maintain the tradi- 
tional view of a second Roman imprisonment, and denied by 


18* 


418 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


Thy {Traviav (édrivm yap Svatropevopevos JedcacJat bpwas 
kai op vuav mpoTempIhvar éxel, Eav Duw@v mp@Tov aro 
t > a 25 \ \ i eG \ 
fépous e€uTAnoda). vuvt S€ Tropevopat eis “Llepovcadip 


those who, like Wieseler, reject this. After Szaviav, the Re- 
ceptus, with L, inserts eAevoopat 7pds tuas; which is omitted 
by SABCDEFG Peshito, Vulg., Copt., Aith., Griesbach, 
Mill, Lachm., Knapp, Tisch., Tregelles. Such a preponder- 
ance of manuscript and editorial authority makes it necessary 
to reject the clause, although it renders the construction very 
difficult. yap] is supported by NABCDEL Copt., Receptus, 
Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles; and omitted by FG Peshito, Aith., 
Griesbach. The weight of authority requires its adoption, 
though it still more complicates the structure, if €Aevoopor 
etc. is rejected. We adopt Lachmann’s punctuation and 
parenthesis, as on the whole dealing best with the difficulties 
in the case. Tischendorf places a colon after Szaviay, d:a- 
mopevduevos] The Apostle intended no long stay, but only a 
rapid passage through the city of Rome, because the Chris- 
tian church was already established there. i¢’| is the read- 
ing of RACL Receptus, Tisch., Tregelles; dd’ (‘from your 
city”) is the reading of BDEFG Lachmann. The first agrees 
best with other passages in which the persons who escort the 
apostle are spoken of. Compare Acts xv. 3; 2 Cor. i. 16. 
éexet| instead of éxetoe. ‘‘ After verbs of motion, the adverb 
of rest expresses the odject of the motion. To be escorted 
thither, in order to be there. Compare John xi. 8.” Philippi. 
amo jepovs] “in some degree:” non quantum vellem, sed 
quantum licebit. Grotius. tay éurAno IG] spiritually filled, 
or satisfied, by personal intercourse. It is the same as the 
“comforting together by mutual faith,” in i. 12. 


Ver. 25, in Lachmann’s arrangement, is closely connected 
with the first clause of verse 24: the vuvi dé of verse 23 being 


CHAPTER XV. 26, 2%. 419 


* evddxnoay yap Makedovia Kai 


Svaxovav Tois ayiois. 
All he if Nv Ms 4 ? \ \ an 
Ayaia Kowwviay Tia ToujoacIat cis Tovs TTwYXOVS TOV 
ee a > c , 27 297 s vs 

ayiov tov év ‘Iepovoadjp. ™ evdoxnoav yap, Kai opet- 


/ lal a a fal 
ETAL cialv avTa@V* Eb yap Tos TYEUMATLKOIS aUT@V EKOL- 


resumed in verse 25. The writer does not finish what he in- 
tended to say when he began the sentence, “* Whenever I go 
into Spain.” He first interrupts himself by the thought ex- 
pressed in the parenthesis, and then, instead of returning to 
the sentence and completing it, adds, “ But now I am [not 
going to Spain but] going to Jerusalem,” ete. «is “Iepovoa- 
dip] This was the apostle’s fifth journey to Jerusalem, Acts 
xxi. 15,17. The first journey is mentioned in Acts ix; the 
second, in xi. 30; the third, in xv.; the fourth, in xvii, 21. 
duaxovav| the service consisted first, in taking up the collec- 
tion, and then, in conveying it to the poor brethren at Jeru- 
salem. The present tense denotes the present continuance 
of the service. Respecting this collection, see Acts xxiv. 17; 
iWon xvi. a; 2 Cor. ix. 1, 2: ee 


Ver. 26 gives the reason, introduced by yap, why he has 
to render this service. «vddxynoav| (yidoxnoav, NB Tisch.). 
Compare Luke xii. 32; Rom. x.1; 1 Cor. i, 21; Gal. 1. 15. 
xowwviay| literally, communion, or fellowship. As a charit- 
able gift is an expression of this, the word came to have the 
technical signification of “contribution.” mrwxods . . év ‘Te- 
povoaAyu| the church at Jerusalem was particularly needy, as 
the wealth and culture of the Jews at the national centre 
was antagonistic to Christianity. 


Ver. 27. ebddxnoav] (niddxnoay, SA Tisch.) is repeated, in 
order to add the remark, that this voluntary resolve was at 
the same time the discharge of a Christian obligation. zvev- 
parixois aitav| the blessings of the gospel had passed from 


420 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


vevnoay Ta éIvn, opetdovaw Kal év Tols wapKiKots et- 
Toupyhoat avtois. “ tobTo obv émitedéoas Kat oppayicd- 
pevos avTOIs TOV KapTrOV TOUTOV, aTrehEeVTOMaL OL LUaYV ELS 
Sraviav: * oida S€ OTe epyopevos Tpos Upas ev TANP@waTe 
evrAoylas Xpiorov éhevoouat. “ Tapakade Oé vuas, ader- 
, \ ral i? e lal OE n xX a \ PS) \ a > s 
fot, dia Tod Kupiov juav Inood Xpictod Kai Sia THs ayd- 
fo) s / 7 > lad an 

TNS TOD TVEvpaATOS, TUVAywVvicacJal pot EV Tals TpoTEVYais 


the mother-church at Jerusalem to the Gentiles. capxcxois| 
material good. The higher spiritual gift demands, certainly, 
the smaller temporal gift, in return. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 11. 


VER. 28. rotro] this business of “‘ministering.” odpaywa- 
pevos| not literally: “ having carried the money sealed” (Hras- 
mus, Calvin), or, “having assured them by letter and seal, 
as to the delivery of the money” (Michaelis); but figurative- 
ly: “having put them in secure possession.” Compare the 
English “consign,” from consignare. dmeAevoonar| namely, 
from Jerusalem. 6 tpdv] through your city, 2 Cor. i. 16. 


VER. 29. ofa] expresses strong conviction. éy] “ endowed 
with,” or “full of.” Compare év Avzy, in 2 Cor. ii. 1. eddAo- 
yias] is followed by tod ciayyediov rod, in L Peshito, Vulgate, 
Receptus. These words are omitted by NABCDEFG Copt., 
Aith., Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. 


Ver. 30. St. Paul now asks the prayers of the Roman 
brethren, with reference to his impending journey: a fre- 
quent request of his, 2 Cor. i. 11; Phil. i. 19; Philemon 22. 
6.4] denotes the motive. Compare xii. 1.  déydans| is sub- 
jective: the love wrought in the believer by the Holy Spirit, 
Gal. v. 22. “He appeals not only to their love of Christ, 
but to their love for himself, as a fellow Christian.” Hodge. 
cvvaywvicacJai] prayer is a struggle (a&yav) with God'(Gen. 
xxxii, 24 sq.), and against inward and outward spiritual foes 


CHAPTER XV. 31, 32 421 


e \ 3 A \ Ni r 23 c lal b) A A > , 
imép €uod mpos Tov Yeov, * Wa pucI@ awd tev aTeouv- 
> a ? / \ ec rg ¢€ ? fd \ 
tov ev TH Lovdaia Kal 1) dvaxovia wou 7 ets ‘Lepovcanije 
evTpoabetos Tois dylous yevntat, “ iva év yapa EXS@v Tpos 


(Luke xiii. 24). Compare Coloss. i. 29; ii. 1; iv. 12.  mpos 
tov Jedv| is connected with zpocevxats. 


Ver. 31. wa] denotes the object of the prayer. fvaJa 
dd tov dreJoivtwv| the Jews were unbelievers in the gospel 
(and thus disobedient to God), and bitter opponents of St. 
Paul as the preacher of the gospel. For instances, see Acts 
xiv. 2; xxi. 27; 2 Cor. xi. 24. xat] is followed by wa, only 
in the Receptus EL. d:axovia] is the reading of RNACEL 
Peshito, Copt., Aith., Recept., Tisch., Tregelles; dwpodopia is 
the reading of BDFG Lachm, The former agrees best with 
duaxovay, in verse 25. is] denotes the destination of the 
“ministry.” This is the reading of RACE Recept., Tisch- 
endorf. Lachmann, with BDFG, reads év. eimpdcdextos| The 
Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians show 
that, owing to Judaistic prejudices, there was some jealousy 
toward the apostle to the Gentiles, in the church at Jerusa- 
lem. St. Paul desires to have this removed, so that his ser- 
vice shall be “entirely acceptable.” dy/os| notwithstanding 
their jealousy of him, he recognizes them as fellow-believers, 
and denominates them “saints.” 


Ver. 32. wa] denotes the final aim of the prayer, viz.: 
that he might have a prosperous meeting with the Roman 
church. The prayer, in this particular, was not granted, for 
he went to Rome as a prisoner, Acts xxiii. 11; xxviii. 14, 16, 
€\Jov] is the reading of SAC, Copt., Lachm., Tisch. The 
Receptus, DEFGL, Peshito, Vulgate, Aith., read AIw, Jeov] 
is found in ACL, Peshito, Vulgate, Copt., Receptus, Tischen- 
dorf. Lachmann, with B, reads kvupiov Inoot. ® reads “Inood 
Xpirod. DEFG read Xpwrot “Ijoot. St. Paul elsewhere em- 


422 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


fal fal a e 
vpas Ota JerXnpatos Jeod cuvvavaraticapar vpiv. “Oo 6é 
Jeos THs eipyvyns weTa TavT@V buayv. ayyV. 


ploys Jeod in connection with JeAyua, Compare i. 10; 1 Cor. i. 
1; iv. 19; 2 Cor. i. 1; ,wiii.-5; Ejph.i..1; Coloss. 1, J5) 29m ee 
This would be the only instance of the phrase, “by the will 
of Christ.” cvvavaravowpat tuiv|] ‘That I may be refreshed 
together with you.” The word literally means, “to obtain a 
rest.” Spiritual rest and refreshment is meant, as in 1 Cor. _ 
xvi, 18; 2 Cor. vii. 13. These words are found in NACL, 
Receptus, Lachm. (1st ed.), Tischendorf. B and Lachm. (2d 
ed.) omit them. DE read dvapvugw pe? iuedv. FG read avayixw 
ped tpov. If eAIw is adopted, kai must be supplied before 


OV/AVATAVIWUAL. 


Ver. 33 is a common formula of invocation, often em- 
ployed by St. Paul. Compare xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xii. 11; Phil. 
iv. 9; 1 Thess. v. 23; 2 Thess. iii. 16; Heb. xiii. 20. eipyrvys] 
refers, not to the differences among the Roman brethren 
(Grotius, Calvin), nor to his own conflicts (Meyer); but to 
Christian peace, simply (Philippi). dayyv] is found in 
NBCDEL, Peshito, Vulgate, Copt., Aith., Recept., Tisch. 
It is omitted in AFG, and bracketted by Lachmann and 
Tregelles, 


CHAPTER XVI. 


' Swviornus Sé byiv PoiBnv tHv aderAPhv juav, odcav 
Sudkovov THs éxKAnolas Tis év Kevypeais, * wa tpoo- 


Tuts chapter is composed chiefly of St. Paul’s salutations 
(verses 3-16), and those of his companions (verses 22-24). 


Ver. 1. ovvicrn] “I recommend,” 2 Cor. v. 12; x. 12, 18. 
She is both introduced to them, and commended to their 
affectionate reception. ®o/8ynv| from Phoebus (Apollo), which 
is found as a proper name in Martial, iii. 89. Phoebe is found 
in Suetonius (Augustus, 65). The original idolatrous refer- 
ence of the name had disappeared, like that of the days of 
the English week, and hence Christians made no change in 
their names in such cases. ddeApyv] she is first recommended 
as a fellow-believer. dudxovoyv] owing to the rigid separation 
of the sexes, females in the early church performed the duties 
of the diaconate, in caring for the sick, poor, and strangers, 
of the female portion of the church. Pliny, in his celebrated 
epistle (x. 97), alludes to “duz ancillee que ministre diceban- 
tur.” Phoebe was probably a widow; because, according to 
Greek manners, she could not have been mentioned as acting 
in the independent manner described, if either her husband 
had been living, or she had been unmarried. Conybeare. 
Kevypeais| the eastern port of Corinth, about seventy stadia 
distant. Compare Acts xviii. 18. 


Ver. 2. tpoodéénoFe] denotes fraternal reception, like zpoc- 
AapBadveoJe, in xiv. 1; xv. 7%. déiws tav dyiwv| either, “as it 


424 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


déEnode aitiv ev Kupim akiws Tov ayiwy, Kal TapacThre 
QuTH ev @ av vuov ypnkn Tpdypate* Kal yap avTH TpogTda- 
TLS TOAK@Y eyevndn Kai Ewov aUTOD. 

° ’Aaracacde IIpicxav nai >Axkvrav todls cuvepyovs 
pov ev Xpiat@ Incov, * oitwes bmép ths wuyfs pov Tov 
éavTav Tpdxynrov UTéInKay, ols OK Ey povos evyapLaT@ 


becomes saints to receive saints,” or “‘as saints should be re- 
ceived.” The first is preferable with reference to év kuplo. 
mapactyre, etc.| “assist her,” etc. This may refer, either to 
official business for the church, or to some personal business 
of her own. airy] “she herself” (not airy, “this one”). 
This accentuation of Bengel, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, 
suggests more strongly the motive for the assistance. Com- 
pare 1 Cor. xvi. 10; Phil. ii. 29 sq. mpooraris| is not used 
technically here of an office, as kal éuod aitod shows; but in 
the sense of a succorer, or benefactor. See the explanation 
of mpoiotapevos, in xii. 8. 


Ver. 3. Lpicxay] (2 Tim. iv. 19) is the reading of 
SABCDEFG, Vulg., Copt., Bengel, Griesbach, Knapp, 
Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. The Receptus, Peshito, Aith., 
have IIptoxAdAav (Acts xviii. 2), which is the diminutive of 
IIpioxay, like Livia and Livilla, Drusa and Drusilla. From 
Acts xviii. 2 sq., 18, 26; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Rom. xvi. 3; 2 Tim. 
iv. 19, it appears that Aquila was a native of Pontus, and 
was driven, with his wife, by the persecution of the Jews by 
Claudius, from Rome to Corinth, whence he emigrated to 
Ephesus, and thence to Rome again, and finally to Ephesus 
again. ovvepyovs| a deaconess is a “fellow laborer” with an 
apostle. That the labor included religious teaching, as well 
as merely diaconal service, is proved by Acts xvili. 26. 


Ver. 4. tpaxnAov tréInxav] sc. tro tov cidypov. This is to 
be taken figuratively, in the sense of exposure to great péril 


CHAPTER XVI. 6, 6. 495 


GNA Kal Tacal ai exKAncias TOV eIVOV, *° Kal THY KAT 
oixov avTav éxkAnoiav. aotdcacde Emawertov Tov ayatn- 
TOV gov, Os éoTLW aTrapy?) THs Actas eis Xpuctov. * aomd- 
cacte Mapiav, rus moda éxoTriacey eis twas. * adoTd- 
for the purpose of preserving the apostle’s life. This may 
have occurred on such occasions as the tumults at Corinth 
and Ephesus, mentioned in Acts xviii. 12 sq.3 xix. 23 sq. 
exxAnola tav éIvov| sc. cixapiotovor. i, e., for preserving me, 
the apostle of the Gentiles, xi. 13, 


Ver. 5. kar’ otxoy aitav exkAnoiav| Compare 1 Cor. xvi. 19; 
Coloss. iv. 15; Philemon 2. Before the erection of churches, 
the Christian congregations met in private houses. The 
phrase does not mean, “their house-hold, the church” (Ori- 
gen, Chrysost., Flatt). This would be 6 dys otkos. °“Ezraive- 
tov] none of the names in verses 5-15 occur elsewhere in the 
New Testament, with the exception, perhaps, of “Poddos 
(Mark xv. 21). Patristic tradition makes these persons to 
belong to the seventy disciples (Luke x. 1), and to have been 
bishops and martyrs. dazapx7]| the first convert. “Agias] Asia 
Minor; proconsular Asia; Asia cis Taurum. This is the 
reading of NABCDFG, Vulg., Copt., dith., Mill, Bengel, 
Griesbach, Lachm., Tisch. The Receptus, L, Peshito, read 
*Axaias, which conflicts with 1 Cor. xvi. 15, unless Epenetus 
was a member of the family of Stephanas. eis Xpuorov] “ with 
respect to Christ.” 


Ver. 6. Mapiavy| is the reading of ABC, Copt., Lachm., 
Tregelles. Tischendorf, NDEFGL, Recept., read Mapvip. 
The name indicates a Jewish Christian. éxoriacav] denotes 
practical labor (Acts xx. 34, 35; 1 Cor. iv. 12), and not labor 
in teaching and preaching, which requires the adjunct év Aoyw 
kal dWackadia (1 Tim. v. 17), or else something in the context 


which defines it, as in Gal. iv. 11; Phil. 1.16. The teaching 


426 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


9 / x >? Oe \ la) \ 
cacde ’Avdpdvixov Kai ‘lIovviay tovs ouyyevets pov Kai 
TUVALYMANOTOUS fOV, OiTLVés ELoW ETioNMOL EV TOIS aTrOC- 


function of women was confined to the instruction of young 
women, in the fulfilment of their duties as wives and mothers, 
Titus ii. 38. The public teaching of the congregation by 
women was prohibited by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35. The 
case of the prophetess was extraordinary, because it rested 
upon a supernatural gift, Acts xxi. 9; 1 Cor. xi. 5. tas] is 
the reading of NABOC, Peshito, Copt., Aith., Griesbach, 
Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. The Receptus and L have yds. 
DEFG have év iviv. The second reading, though not so well 
supported as the first, agrees better with the connection. 
Acts of kindness toward.the apostle, rather than toward 
the Roman congregation, would be a reason for his greeting 
to Mary. 


Ver. 7. “Iovviay] Chrysostom and others take this as the 
accusative of “lovvia, a feminine noun, denoting, in this case, 
either the wife (verse 3), or the sister (verse 15) of Androni- 
cus. Others regard it as a man’s name, Junias, an abbrevia- 
tion of Junianus; in which case it should be written “Iovvcav. 
ovyyeveis] not ‘ countrymen” (De Wette, Olshausen), because 
there were many other Jews in the congregation to whom 
salutations might have been sent upon this ground; but 
“relatives,” Mark vi. 4; Luke i. 36, 58; ii. 44; John xviii. 
26; Acts x. 24.  cvvatyadcrouvs|] St. Paul was several times 
imprisoned, 2 Cor. vi. 5; Clement of Rome (1 Cor. 5) says, 
“‘seven times.” év Tots drocrdXous | not “ among,” in the sense of 
“of,” or “belonging to,” the apostles, as Origen, Chrysost., 
Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Tholuck, explain: giving 
a wide signification to the term “apostle,” so that it denotes 
all whose labors are not confined to one church, but who 
plant churches everywhere; but, “‘ honorably known among 


CHAPTER XVI. 811. 497 


, “a \ Nae a f > a gi , 
TONOLS, Of Kal TPO Ewod yéyovay ev Xpiote. * aomdcacde 
*"Aurrliav Tov ayarntov pou év Kupio. ° aomacacde Odp- 

pihiav TOV ayarrnToVv jou ev KUpio. a p 

\ \ a a \ 
Bavov Tov cuvepyov iuav ev Xpicte@, Kal Staxyvy Tov aya- 
myTOV pov. “ aotacacde AredAdV TOV SoKipmov ev XpioTo. 


1 


aomdcacJde Tovs €x Tav ApictoBovrov. “ aoTdacacte 


the apostles.” (Beza, Grotius, De-Wette, Fritzsche, Meyer, 
Philippi). When the term “apostle” is applied to others 
than the Twelve, as in 2 Cor. vill. 23; xi. 15, it is anarthrous. 
mpo enov, etc.| the fact that Andronicus and Junia had been 


believers of such long standing made them ‘ 


distinguished.” 
“Venerabilis facit eetas, in Christo maxime.” Bengel.  yé- 
yovav | this reading of SAB Lachm., Tisch., is the Alexandrine 


form of yeyovacw, which is the reading of CL Receptus. 


Ver. 8. “Ayrdiav| is a Greek contraction from Ampliatus. 
Tischendorf, SABFG, Vulgate, Copt., Aith., read “Apzdiaror. 
The first form is supported by CDEL, Peshito, Receptus, 
Lachm. 


Ver. 9. OipBavov| Urbanus is a Roman name.  ovvepyov | 
Compare verse 3. =raxvvy| is a Greek name: literally, a 
“wheat ear,” Mat. xu. 1. 


Ver. 10. “Are\Ajv] compare “ Judzeus Apella,” Horace, 
Sat., I. i. 100. Origen and Grotius confound this person 
with Apollos (Acts xviii. 24). ddxqmov| his Christian faith 
and constancy has been tested and proved. ovs é« tv “Apus- 
toBovAov| the genitive denotes dependence: children, kins- 
men, domestics, or slaves may be meant. From the fact that 
Aristobulus himself receives no greeting, and that tovs is 
used, it is probable that he was not a believer, and that only 
the believers in his household are meant. Compare tots ovras 
€v kupiw, in verse 11. 


Ver. 11. “Hpwoiwva] is formed from “Hpwées, like Kaoapiov 


428 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


c , \ a b) , \ ? la) 
Hpwdiwva tov cuvyyerh pov. acmacacde Todls ex Tov Nap- 

/ \ ” > t 12,.3: L , \ 
Kiocov Tovs dvtas év Kupig. ™“ domdcacte Tpvdpaway xai 
Tpuddécay tas KoTi@cas év Kupio. aomacacde ITepoida 
THY ayaTHnTHVY, HTls TOAAa éxoTriacev ev Kupio. ™ aoTa- 
caode ‘Poddov rov éxrexTov ev Kuplo, Kal THY unTépa avTod 

pov TOV EKNEKTOV EV KUPL@, KAL THV LNTEPA aU 


from Kaicap. ovyyev7| Philippi suggests, from the fact that 
Herodion is not mentioned with the kinsmen in verse 7%, that 
he belonged to the class of freedmen, or slaves. Napxicoov] 
**Puto intelligi Narcissum Claudii libertatem (Suet. Claud., 
28; Tac. Ann., xii. 57; xiii. 1) in cujus domo aliqui fuerint 
Christiani.” Grotius. So Calvin and Neander. Narcissus 
died before this epistle was written, but members of his fam- 
ily may have been the persons saluted. 


Ver. 12. Tpvdavay xat Tpvddcay| probably two sisters. tas 
komuwoas| ‘ quae laborarunt, etsi nomen habent azo tpudjs, a 
deliciis, ut Naémi.” Bengel. WUepoida| is a name derived 
from the native country, like Lydia, Syrus, Davus, Geta. 
> , : . a 
ayarytyv| pov is not added, as in verses 5, 8, 9, where men 
are referred to. Philippi. aoAAd éxoriacev | Compare verse 6. 


Ver. 13. “Potdoy] In Mark xv. 21, Simon of Cyrene is 
described as the father of Alexander and Rufus. ‘This 
shows that Rufus must have been highly esteemed in the 
church, when the evangelist wrote. St. Paul, also, mentions 
him, here, with special praise. Hence many expositors main- 
tain the identity of the Rufus in Mark xv. 21 and Rom. xvi. 
13. ékAexrov] not in the sense applicable to all believers, but 
in the sense of “excellent,” ‘‘choice:” the French élite. He 
was distinguished as a Christian. Compare 2 John i. 13. 
é0v| his mother “in the Lord” (“in Israel,” Judges v. 7), 
and, perhaps, by reason of maternal kindness toward him. 
Compare John xix. 27; 1 Cor. i. 2. see 


CHAPTER XVI. 14-16. 4929 


Kar ewod. “ domdcacde “Aciyxpitov, Préyovta, ‘Epyijy, 
TlatpoBav, ‘Eppav, xa) rods ctv avbtois adedpovs. ' aomd- 
cacSe Pidoroyov kai Ioviav, Nnpéa Kai tiv aderpyv 
avtod, kal “OdvpTrav, Kal Tors ody avTois TdvtTas wylous. 
" Gomdoacde adAndouS év Hidnpate ayiw. aowdlovTar 
buds ai exxrAnoia, Tacat Tod Xpiotov. 


Ver. 14. The persons mentioned in this, and the follow- 
ing verse, were acquaintances of the apostle, but either not 
so well known, or not so highly distinguished, as the pre- 
ceding persons mentioned, since no epithets are applied to 
them. “Aovyxpitov] Tischendorf SDEFG read *Aovv«pitov. 
‘Epp, etc. | is the order in SABCDFG, Copt., Aith., Lachm., 
Tisch. The Receptus, with Peshito, Vulg., DEL, have “Eppav 
IlarpoBav “Eppjv. Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and others, er- 
roneously take this Hermes for the author of the Pastor. 
The latter was the brother of the Roman bishop Pius, and 
lived A.D. 150. ov airois| does not refer to assembling for 
worship, at their house (verse 5), nor to missionary union in 
evangelistic labor (Reiche), but to common business pursuits 
and occupations (Fritzsche, Philippi). 


Ver. 15. “lovAiav| some read “IovA\vév, which is a contraction 
of Julianus,.and would make the person a man, Julian, in- 
stead of a woman, Julia. See on verse 7. Nypéa| from Nypevs, 
originally a mythological name, like ®ofByv, verse 1. SEG 
read Nypeav. “Odvurav] is a contraction from “OdAvprwwdopor. 
Grotius. tots ov avrois| their particular associates in life 
and occupation, as in verse 14. Calvin remarks, respecting 
these salutations, that “it would have been unseemly to have 
omitted Peter, in so long a catalogue, if he was then at 
Rome, as the Romanists assert.” 


VeR. 16. piAjpat.] Compare 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 
1 Thess. v. 26; 1 Pet. v.14. The kiss is the Oriental mode 


430 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


' Tlapaxar® 5é twas, adedpot, oxomeiv Tos Tas Suyo- 
oTagias Kal Ta oKavdada Tapa TiV SLdayhy Hv Ypeis eud- 


of salutation, as hand-shaking is the Occidental: the men 
saluting the men, and women the women. Justin Martyr 
(Apology, i. 65) remarks: ‘‘ We give each other a kiss, at 
the close of public worship.” aacat]| is the reading of 
SABCDEFG, Peshito, Vulg., Copt., 4ith., Griesbach, Mill, 
Lachm., Tisch. The Receptus omits it. The apostle ex- 
presses the common Christian sentiment, or the fellowship 
of the churches. Or, it may be that he refers to the churches 
ev KiKhw THS “Inpovoadiyp, xv. 19. 

In verses 17-30, St. Paul returns to the believer’s duty in 
reference to God and the church, in respect to teachers of 
false doctrine, and disorganizers. ‘The fact that the Roman 
epistle is so free from all direct polemical allusions to such 
teachers, shows that hitherto they had found no entrance 
into the church.” Philippi. Hence, the apostle’s exhorta- 
tion has reference to the future. He would put them upon 
their guard against the Judaizing Ebionite and the antino- 
mian Gnostic, who were beginning already to make their 
influence felt in the infant church, both in doctrine and 
practice, 


Ver. 17. 6é] is transitive: “now.” oxomety] “to keep an 
eye upon,” so as to guard against. Compare Phil. ni. 17. 
tas dvyxyootacias| the article denotes “the well-known dissen- 
sions.” The reference is to differences in both doctrine and 
practice, because the latter originate in the former. 7a oxav- 
dada] the article has the same force as in the preceding in- 
stance. oxavdaAa denotes the occasions or causes of the 
dixooTacia. See comment on xi, 9; xiv. 13, What they 
were, is explained in the context, apa] “contrary to,” 
Tv d0axnv| the teaching which they had received from the 


CHAPTER XVI. 18. 431 


a a ls la) 
Sere movovvtas, Kal éxxkdivete dT avTav' “ ot yap ToLoDTOL 
T® Kupio nuov X D ov dovAEVOUTLY, GANA TH EavTaV 
_T® Kupio nuav Xpist@ ov Sov ow, a 7] 
KONG, Kal Sia THs ypnoToroyias Kal evrNoyias eEaTTaTo@oW 


apostles and their ovvepyovs. It is the same as tov tumor dida- 
xfs, in vi. 17, éxxAivere ax’| ‘incline away from,” or “avoid:” 
the contrary of zpocAapBuvecde,-in xiv. 1; xv. 7. Beware of 
their society, As these persons were not members of the 
church, they could not be excommunicated. Hence, the 
remark of Grotius, that ‘there was as yet no regularly con- 
stituted church at Rome, otherwise the apostle would have 
bidden them to excommunicate these false teachers,” is er- 
roneous. Chapter xii, 6-8 shows that there was a church 
organization at Rome. 


Ver. 18 gives the reason, introduced by yap, for avoiding 
the false teachers. Xpict@] the Receptus, L, Peshito, Copt., 
read ‘Incod Xpwrd. ov dovAevovew] they refuse to serve, as the 
position of the negative shows. «oAia] se. dovAevovow.: they 
lived a life of pleasure. Departure from truth in doctrine 
naturally leads to immorality in practice. The intellectual 
check being gone, the sensual bent is unrestrained. The 
union of sensuality with heresy is frequently spoken of in 
the New Testament. Compare Phil. ui. 18, 19; 1 Tim. vi. 
3-5; Titus i, 10-12. xpnorodoyias}] is used only here, in the 
New Testament: “‘dissembling words;” the language of a 
good man hypocriticaily used by a bad man, Julius Capito- 
linus (Vita Pertinacis, 13) defines a “‘ Chrestologus,” as one 
“qui bene loqueretur ut male faceret.” Compare 2 Cor. xi. 
> refers rather to flattery. 
Deceit and flattery are of one species, and may, therefore, 
be connected with only one article, as here. dxdxwv] the 


13, 14. etdAoyias| “fair speeches,’ 


“ouileless,” who ‘having no guile in their own hearts do 
not expect to find it in others.” Philippi. 


439 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


a A ee , 
Tas Kapdlas TGV aKdKov. ™ i) yap vuav UTaKoN Els TaVTAS 

Tad 8 lal Lop > 
adixeto: éf vuiv odv xalpw, Jérw Sé buas copods Eivar Eis 


Ver. 19. yap] Explanations: 1. It introduces a second 
reason for avoiding false teachers (De Wette, Tholuck, Phi- 
lippi). Meyer objects to this, that yap is never repeated in a 
co-ordinate sentence. But see v. 7. 2. It implies that the 
Roman believers are characterized by this guilelessness which 
is liable to be imposed upon (Origen, Calvin, Fritzsche, Riick- 
ert, Hodge). In this case, izakoy is taken to denote an obe- 
dient disposition which is liable to be imposed upon, and so 
is equivalent to dxaxia, 3. There is an implied antithesis, 
So far as the Roman brethren are concerned, the apostle 
knows that by reason of their obedient faith (traxoy wicrews, 
i. 5, 8), they are not liable to be deceived (Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Meyer). “Not without reason do I say ‘the 
hearts of the simple-minded;’ for (yap) you they will not 
deceive, because you do not belong to this class.” Of these 
explanations, the third is preferable, because it best agrees 
with the succeeding context, and izaxoy has its common sig- 
nification of “obedience of faith.” is mavras adixero| is 
equivalent to xatayyéAerar év OAw TO Koop, 1. 8. ef dyiv ody 
xaipw| is the reading of NABCL, Lachm., Tisch., Tregelles. 
xaipw otv ép tyiv is that of DFG. The Receptus, Peshito, 
Copt., read xaipw otv 76 éf’ iptv. odv] because of your well- 
known faith. Jédw dé, etc.] while he has this confidence and 
joy in them, he yet knows that they are fallible, and gives a 
mild caution, according to the maxim, “ Let him that think- 
eth he standeth, take heed lest he fall.” cogots] quick to 
discern. is 70 dyaJdv| in reference to the true doctrine and 
practice which you have learned (verse 17). dxepaious] (not 
dkakovs, as in verse 18): “innocent,” or “ simple-minded,” in 
the bad sense, as the opposite of cofois. For the good sense 
of the word, see Mat. x. 16; Phil. ii. 15, The apostle would 


—— ~ ian lh _~" — = 


CHAPTER XVI. 20. 433 


TO ayadov, aKeprious Oé eis Td KaKov. ” 0 dé JEds THs Elpy- 
yns ovvtpipes Tov catavay bd Tods Tddas budy ev TaYEL. 
 Xapus ToD Kkupiov hudv Incod Xprotod ped vuav. 


have them dull and obtuse in reference to evil. 1d xaxdv] the 
false doctrine of the false teachers. Compare 2 Cor, xiv. 20. 


VzR. 20. dé] is not transitive (Eng. Ver.), but adversative. 
“There are these dangers from false teachers, and I have 
cautioned you; but, notwithstanding, the God of peace shall 
bruise, etc.” <ipyvys| the contrary of the dissensions and 
divisions spoken of above. ovrtpije] a reference, as many 
expositors explain, to Gen. iii. 15. cavavay] false teachers 
are the ministers of Satan, 2 Cor. xi. 5. é rdxe] the early 
heresies were failures. Ebionitism and Gnosticism were 
soon crushed out. The preservation of primitive Christianity 
from the fatal errors that very soon assailed it is one of the 
most striking of the gracious providences of God toward his 
church. 7 xdpis, etc.] is the usual benediction at the end of 
the Pauline epistles. Compare 2 Cor. xiii. 14; Gal. vi. 18; 
Phil. iv. 23; 2 Thess. iii. 18, etc. “Inood Xpicrod] is the read- 
ing of ACL, Peshito, Vulgate, Coptic, Aithiopic, Receptus, 
Lachm. S&B Tisch. omit Xpicrot. The Receptus reads dunjy, 
but this is supported by no uncial ms., and is generally re- 
jected by editors. 


Verses 21-23 are a postscript conveying the greetings of 
St. Paul’s companions, kinsmen, and friends, to the Roman 
church. These persons, very probably, requested the apostle 
to send their salutations, after he had concluded his epistle. 
The addition of such a postscript is a strong evidence of 
genuineness rather than of spuriousness. 


VeR. 21. doraferat] is the reading of RABCDFG, Vulg., 


Copt., Lachm., Tisch. The Receptus EL read dond{ovrat. 
19 


434 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


** Aomadveras duds TipdSeos 0 cvvepyos jou, Kat Aov«.os 
kal Idowv cai Swotratpos of ovyyevels pov. ” aomavopar 
vuas eyo Téprios 0 ypawWas Thy érictoAny ev Kupio. ™ ao- 
Has ey p i peg 


mateta, twas Tdios o Eévos prov Kal 6rAns THs exKANHoIas. 


Ty0Je0s | is the well-known companion and helper who is men- 
tioned in all the Pauline epistles, excepting Galatians, Ephe- 
sians, and Titus. Compare, also, Acts xvi. 1 sq.; xvii. 14 sq.; 
Xvill. 55 xix. 22; xx. 4. Aov«vos] Origen confounds him with 
the evangelist Luke. Perhaps he was Lucius of Cyrene, 
Acts xiii. 1. “Iaowy] Perhaps Jason of Thessalonica, Acts 
xvil. 5 sq. Swotratpos| Probably Swrarpos (Sopater) of Berea, 
Acts xx. 4. Compare Swxpdarys and Swouxparys, Sdorparos and 


Swototpatos. ot cvyyevets] Compare verses 7, 11. 


Vir. 22. doréfopa] the tense changes. Tertius, who has 
written the epistle thus far, at the dictation of the apostle, 
now sends his own salutation, by the permission, or perhaps 
the suggestion, of the apostle: “hoc Pauli vel hortatu vel 
concessu facile interposuit Tertius.” Bengel. As Philippi 
remarks, it would haye been unfitting for St. Paul to send 
the salutation from Tertius as from a third person, while 
the latter himself wrote it down. | Téprios] Grotius remarks 
respecting Tertius and Quartus, ‘“ Romani hi fuerunt .ne- 
gotiantes Corinthi.” Tertius has been incorrectly taken to 
be Silas, because the Hebrew for tertius ("w"dw) sounds like 
Silas. But the Greek SiAas is the contraction of SAovavds 
(Sylvanus). ypaipas] St. Paul was accustomed to dictate his 
epistles, as appears from 1 Cor. xvi, 21; Gal. vi. 11; Coloss. 
iv. 18; 2 Thess. iii. 17. év xupiw| is an adjunct of dorafopat. 


Ver. 23. The apostle begins again to dictate. T'dios| 
(Caius) is probably the same that is mentioned in 1 Cor, 1. 
14; since this epistle was written at Corinth. There are, 
however, three others of this name, in the New Testament, 


CHAPTER XVI. 24, 26. 435 


> / ig = ” £ ’ f fal , . 
aomdagerat vyuas “Epactos 0 oixovdmos Tis WoNews, Kai 
Kovaptos 0 adedpos. ™ 9 ydpis Tod Kupiov tudv *Inood 
Xpicrovd peTa TWavT@OV VuaY. apr. 


Acts xix. 29; xx. 4; 38 John 1. €vos pov] during his first 
abode in Corinth, the apostle lodged with Aquila and Priscilla, 
Acts xviii. 1-38; then with Justus, Acts xviii. 7. é««Ayolas] 
Gaius was the “host of the whole church,” because he was 
hospitable to all the members, and his house was the place 
of worship for them. “Epacvos| is not the person mentioned 
in Acts xix. 22; 2 Tim. iv. 20, unless we suppose the apostle 
in this place to describe him by an office which he formerly 
held. oixdvoyos] the queestor, or keeper of the public money. 
Kovapros| an Italian, as the name Quartus shows. The 
ordinal numbers, primus, secundus, etc., were employed by 
the Latins as proper names. 6 ddeAdpos| not the brother of 
Erastus, which would require airov, but the Christian brother. 


Vir. 24 is a repetition of the benediction in verse 20, and 
is omitted by SABC, Coptic, Aithiopic, Lachm., Tisch., Tre- 
gelles. It is found in DEFG, Vulgate, Peshito (after verse 
27), Receptus. Meyer retains it, quoting the remark of 
Wolfius : “Ita hodiernum, ubi epistola vale dicto consum- 
mata est, et alia paucis commemoranda menti se adhuc 
offerunt, scribere solemus: vale iterum.” He also cites 2 
Thess. ii. 16, 18, as an instance of the repetition of the 
benediction. But in this place, the two forms are very dif- 
ferent from each other; while in Rom. xvi. 24, it is a verba- 
tim repetition, with the exception of the addition of wavtur. 


Ver. 25 begins one of the most carefully constructed and 
characteristic benedictions, in the Pauline epistles. It is 
found in NBCDH, Vulgate, Peshito, Coptic, Aithiopic, Re- 
ceptus, Bengel, Lachm., Tisch., and Tregelles. L, nearly 
200 of the cursives, the lectionaries, Beza, Griesbach, and 


436 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


25 a \ 4 (Peat \ \ 3 I 4 
TS dé dvvayéve byes ornpi—ar Kata TO evaryyédtov 

‘ \ , ’ an nr \ > YZ. 
joov Kat TO KHpvypa “Incod Xpictod, Kata atroxdduyw 
pvaoTnplov xpdvois aiwviows cecuynuévov, ™ havepwtévtos 


Mill, have it, but place it after xiv. 23. A inserts it both 
after xiv. 23, and xvi. 24. It is wanting in F (with vacant 
space after xiv. 24), and in G (with vacant space after xiv. 
23). The internal evidence is highly in favor of the genuine- 
ness of this benediction, for it is strikingly Pauline in its 
elements. Marcion, the Gnostic, rejected it upon dogmatic 
grounds, and his solitary opinion is the main reliance, so far 
as historical evidence goes, of Baur and the Tiibingen school, 
in their attack upon the genuineness of chapters xv., Xvi. 
Respecting the earlier attacks of Semler and Paulus, De 
Wette (xvi. 25-27) remarks: “die Griinde fiir diese An- 
> 62] is transitive : 
TO Ovvapevw| spiritual strength is not self-derived, 
but is from God. ornpiga] “to render steadfast ;” with 
reference, not merely to the attempts of false teachers, but 
to faith in the whole evangelical doctrine, as St. Paul has 
enunciated it in this epistle. Compare i. 11; 1 Thess. iii. 2, 
13; 2 Thess. ii. 17; iii. 3. xara to edayyeAlov| belongs to ory- 
pif: “in regard to my gospel” (De Wette). The stead- 
fastness has respect to the gospel. God can strengthen them 
so that they shall not vacillate, and depart from evangelical 
truth. For the force of xara, see xi. 28. ov] is used offici- 
ally, as in ii. 16: “fof me, an authorized apostle.” xat] “ name- 
ly.” 70 Kipvypa] is exegetical of 7d etayyeAlov: the gospel is 
the herald’s proclamation, or message, respecting Jesus 
Christ. ‘ Preconium Jesu Christi apellat evangelium.” Cal- 
vin. Xpicrod| not the subjective genitive: Christ’s preach- 
ing by St. Paul (Meyer), but the genitive of the object: the 
preaching which has Christ for its theme (Luther, Calvin, 
De Wette, Tholuck, Philippi). «a7a] is regarded by Meyer 


nahmen verdienen keine Widerlegung.’ 


66 now.” 











CHAPTER XVI. 25. 437 


and others as co-ordinate with the preceding xara, and de- 
pendent upon ornpiga, so that the gospel is denominated an 
amokaAvyis, in respect to which God is able to strengthen 
believers. The objection to this is, that the ‘ mystery ” re- 
ferred to, here, is not the gospel itself; which would require 
the article, as in Eph. iii. 9; Coloss. i. 26; but the fact that 
the Gentiles are partakers with the Jews in the blessings of 
redemption. Hence the view of Fritzsche, Riickert, De 
Wette, Tholuck, and Philippi, is preferable: viz., that xara 
has the meaning of ‘‘conformably to,” or “in consequence 
of,” and depends upon the whole clause ro 6& duvapery ipas 
otypigar.  Riickert would supply 7d yeyevypévov: ‘which 
(namely, 76 kjpvypa) occurred conformably to the revelaticn, 
ete.” pvorypicv] is anarthrous: @ mystery, viz., relating to 
the Gentiles. The term “mystery,” in the Biblical usage, de- 
notes a truth or fact that requires to be revealed from God, 
because it cannot be discovered by human investigation and 
reasoning, It does not necessarily involve something ab- 
struse and difficult to comprehend, though it may involve 
this. That the gospel was intended for the Gentiles was a 
“mystery,” because it could not be known until God had 
announced his intention in this particular. But the doctrine 
of the universality of Christianity is easily enough under- 
stood when revealed. The fact that the reprobation of the 
Jews is to continue until the fulness of the Gentiles has come 
in was a “‘mystery,” until St. Paul, by inspiration, revealed 
it (xi, 25 sq.). But there is nothing difficult of apprehen- 
sion in this revealed fact; though it could not have been 
known to man, unless St. Paul, or some other inspired man, 
had made it known. The “ mystery ” here alluded to is not 
the gospel (De Wette, Meyer), but the calling of the Gen- 
tiles: “‘mysterium de gentibus concorporatis.” Bengel. So 
Philippi. This has been a prominent feature in the epistle 
throughout. Compare i. 5, 6, 13-15; iii. 29; iv. 10, 115 ix, 


4358 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 


5é viv dua Te ypaharv wpodyntiKay Kat érutayiy Tod aiw- 
viou Jeov eis UmaKxony Tictews eis TavTa Ta EIVN YvwpLo- 


94-26, 30; x. 11-13; xi. 11, 13, 30; xv 9, 12; 2 
Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and his gospel (evayy< 
Nov pov), in an emphatic sense, was that the Gentiles are 
fellow-heirs of the promise. Accordingly he describes God, 
in this closing benediction upon a Gentile Church, as one 
who is able to strengthen them in respect to the truth in 
Christ, conformably with that purpose of a universal procla- 
mation of this truth which had eternally been in the mind of 
God, and which he made known at the proper time in the 
Old Testament scriptures. pédvors aiwvivs}] “ during eternal 
ages:” the dative of duration, Luke viii. 29; Acts viii. 11. 
The aidy referred to in this instance, is that in which God 
exists; which is eternity, and not time. Consequently the 
“eonian,” here, is the eternal. The intensive plural is em- 
ployed to denote this. See the comment on vi. 23.  oeotyy- 
pevov| God had “kept silent ” respecting the fact. 


VeER. 26. viv] is antithetic to ypdvors aidviors, as davepwIévros 
is to ceovynevov. re] mentions with particularity an addi- 
tional feature: “and also.” ypadhiv rpodyrixav] the Old Tes- 
tament teaching respecting the universality of the kingdom 
of Christ. Compare i. 2; xi. 18-20; xv. 9-12. If the “mys- 
tery” here spoken of is the plan of redemption in general, 
the Old Testament would not have been mentioned as the 
sole, or even the principal instrument in “making it known.” 
The New Testament was a yet more important means. But 
the Old Testament was particularly needed in order to prove 
to the gainsaying Jews, that the Gentiles were to be par- 
takers of the Messianic salvation. «ar émray}v] is to be con- 
nected with both qavepwIéros and yrwpictévros. aiwviov] is 
suggested by xpdvos aiwvios. is vtaxony mtictews| Compare 


CHAPTER XVI. 27. 439 


Sévt0s, * pove coho Jes Sia Xpiotod Incod, 6 4 Soka 
els TOUS ai@vas TOV aimveV. apn. 


oni. 5. mavra ra éIvy] all the Gentiles, in distinction from 
the Jews, as ini. 5, 13. 


Ver. 27. cope] the epithet is chosen with reference to 
the revelation and announcement of the mystery spoken of. 
The time and manner are ordered in “manifold wisdom.” 
Compare Eph. ii. 3-10. Je@| = 76 dvwvapevw, which is re- 
sumed by it. oa “lycot Xpirod] “is to be closely connected 
with povw cops Jed, and hence no comma is to be placed after 
JeG- ‘To the, through Jesus Christ, only wise God.’” Phi- 
lippi. The divine wisdom has revealed itself in its highest 
form, in Jesus Christ. So Meyer, and De Wette; the latter 
of whom remarks that 6a "Iyood Xpiorod cannot be connected 
with doga, on account of the intervening ® The older ex- 
positors (Chrysostom, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Eng. 
Ver.) so connect it: ‘To the only wise God be glory through 
Jesus Christ.” To do this, requires that ® be rejected. But 
it is found in all the uncials, excepting B, and all the cursives, 
excepting 33 and 72. @] 1. Refers to God as wise through 
Jesus Christ (Meyer). In this case, the dative 7 duvapévw 
with its resumption povw code Je, is an anacoluthon. 2. Gs 
refers to Xpiorod (Tholuck, Philippi). ‘“‘The apostle,” says 
Philippi, “intended to utter a doxology to the power and 
wisdom of God the Father; but inasmuch as this wisdom is 
manifested in Jesus Christ, he transfers the doxology to him, 
and thus, in blessing the revealer of the divine wisdom, 
blesses indirectly the God of wisdom himself.” Compare 2 
Tim. iv. 18; Heb. xiii. 20, 21. 3. 6 is a pleonasm, standing 
for air»: “to him, I say” (Stuart, Hodge). dda] se. ety. 


if, 


a aed 








vat , 
ok 
My 








Date Due 











ee ae 


BS2665 .S541 c.2 
A critical and octal nae — 


ll 


HW | ui 


bind a 9515 





=. it Zi 


